ADVANCE COPY —————— SUBJECT TO REVISION 


NOTE.—This Paper is not to be y erie before its presentation to the Society, but is to 


be regarded confidential until that date. 
It is sent out in advance in order to give opportunity to those interested in the subject to 


prepare written or oral discussion for the Society meeting as noted below 
___THE PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 


WESTERN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS 


17th Floor, Monadnock Block, Chicago 


The Society, as a body, is not responsible for the statements and opinions advocated in its publications. 


THE DESIGN oF STORM WATER DRAINS IN A MODERN SEWER 
SYSTEM. 


Jean Bart Balcomb. 
To be Presented May 18, 1910. 


OUTLINE. 
GENERAL FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM. 
Hyraulic engineering and the city water problem. 
The city water problem and storm drains. 
A three-fold view of the question. 
Essentials of a good system. ; 
Disposing of sewage. 
The separate or combined system. 
Estimating the amount of sewage. 
NECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS. 
Typical sewer lengths. 
Surcharge periods. 
Permeability of surface. 
Surface concentration. 
A RATIONAL SOLUTION. 
Rainfall data. 
Typical precipitation curves. 
Designing the sewers. 
Numbering sewers. 
Essentials of the method outlined. 
Points which commend the above method. 
AcTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND RESULTS TO BE EXPECTED. 
Materials of construction. 
Contracts and specifications. 
Inspection. 
Maintenance. 
Degree of accuracy. 


LIST OF TABLES. 


Table I. Field covered by hydraulic engineering. 
Table II. Heavy precipitations, giving rates per hour. 
Table III. Heavy precipitations by 40 min. time periods. 
Table IV. Heavy precipitations by 20 min. time periods. 
Table V. Heavy precipitations by 10 min. time periods. 


2 


Table VI. List of U. S. weather bureaus, with weights used. 

Table VII. Precipitations used in determining form of 40 
min. typical rain curve. 

Table VIII. Precipitations arranged symmetrically. 

Table IX. Method of obtaining typical intensities. 


DRAWINGS ILLUSTRATING THE TEXT. 


Fig. 1. Map of U. S. Gauging stations. 

Fig. 2. Precipitation curve, Columbia, Mo. 

Fig. 3. Curves of perviousness. 

Fig. 4. Cumulative method of combining discharges. 
Fig. 5. Resultant curve for 40 min. period. 

Fig. 6. Plan of main sewers, Kansas City, Mo. 


GENERAL FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM. 


Hydraulic Engineering and the City Water Problem.—Broadly 
speaking, hydraulic engineering is the art and science of confining 
water. This confining is always relative rather than absolute, being 
an approximation toward making an unstable element stable. The 
city water problem consists in supplying and removing municipal 
water, its relative position in the hydraulic field being shown dia- 
erammatically in Table I. 

During recent years great advanca has been made in the con- 
duct of this branch of municipal affairs. Most cities now have 
water departments, and not a few have well-organized sewer de- 
partments. The writer believes the time not far distant when these 
two departments will be more widely recognized as the comple- 
ments of each other, and in the more progressive communities be 
placed permanently in charge of trained technical men of experience 
and ability. 

Under competent business management, such a department 
would be in position to benefit most largely from the advice and 
experience of consulting engineers, and especially would it be 
possible to plan definitely as to the probable future needs of a city, 
and then proceed with reasonable assurance of materializing such 
plans. 

The City Water Problem and Storm Drans.—To most people, 
among whom may be included a large number of engineers, the 
sewerage problem means simply taking care of sanitary sewage, 
not appreciating the fact that some 99% of the flow in sewers 
would be foreign matter if viewed in this light. The realization 
that this view comprehends but half the problem has given rise to 
the economic demand for storm drains, which, though necessarily 
larger than sanitary sewers, can usually be correspondingly shorter, 
since natural drainage may be largely utilized. 

A Three-Fold View of the Question—Municipal hydraulic en- 
gineering deserves consideration from three points of view: the 
public, the taxpayer, and the engineer. 


~» oe eee 
| 


>. = A 


3 


The public itself has a two-fold interest: to prevent a nuisance 
and to promote health. The former is by far the more potent in- 
centive to action, although the latter is of far more vital importance ; 
and while the danger to health from this menace has been greatly 
overrated, it has been even more greatly ignored. At present many 
of the illusions regarding disease from so-called sewer gas have 
been dispelled, and at the same time a thoroughly active and normal 
interest has been aroused regarding the need for sanitary condi- 
tions. 

The taxpayer looks upon sewers and sewage disposal works as 
necessary evils, the construction of which is to be postponed as long 
as possible and then accomplished with the smallest possible outlay 
of cash, regardless generally of kind or quality, or of the future 
needs of the city. In the role of taxpayers, people are naturally 
obstructionists, but this point of view is largely lost sight of where 
the work is carried on by means of bonds or the expense is defrayed 
from the general treasury; therefore, when feasible, one of these 
methods will be found advantageous. 

The city engineer too often looks upon the subject as though 
it were divided into three parts; house drains and fixtures to be 
left in the hands of plumbers and inspectors, catch basins and the 
like to be constructed from standard plans on file in his office, large 
sewers and disposal works to be constructed after consultation with 
a specialist. The fact is that the specialist should be consulted re- 
garding the entire system, otherwise how can the different parts 
be expected to form a complete whole? The natural desire of the 
engineer is to eliminate the first two points of view, substituting 
his judgment instead. It is well to bear in mind, however, that 
they have to be reckoned with, for the possibility of planning and 
completing a satisfactory system depends almost entirely on their 
relative ascendency and influence. 


Essentials of a Good System.—Until recent years, and still 
very largely, sewer systems were constructed haphazard and piece- 
meal, resulting in inefficiency and unnecessary cost. This can be 
obviated only by having a comprehensive plan to serve as guide in 
the design and construction of all sewers. 

This plan should not only be comprehensive, but should be 
worked out in detail to a far greater degree than is generally 
assumed. By the very nature of things it will be many years in 
building, and, in fact, will never be entirely finished. This empha- 
sizes the néed for an early and rational determination of as many 
factors as possible, in order to best care for the present and future 
generations. No system would be considered modern which did 
not accommodate every building lot for sanitary purposes and sup- 
plement all gutters for storm runoff. This does not mean that 
storm drains should run to summits like sanitary sewers; on the 
contrary, it is usually advisable to allow storm water to flow in 
the gutters for an entire block or more. The first street inlet, and 


037068 


4 


consequent beginning of the sewer, should be placed as far from 
the summit as can be done without allowing the depth of water in 
the gutter to become a nuisance during heavy rains. This results 
in a considerable saving of money and is in accord with the ac- 
cepted principle that storm drains are designed to supplement, not 
to replace gutters. 

Another requisite is that sewers shall be constructed water- 
tight. If it were not for glaring defects of this nature in nearly 
every city of the land, such a statement would be considered self- 
evident. The need is especially urgent in sanitary sewers. On the 
other hand, if there were any great advantage in doing so, storm 
drains might be constructed with a view to allowing slight infiltra- 
tion whenever the water table was above them, since at times when 
it was below there would be but slight objection if water did leak 
out, especially during the short period of a storm. This would 
enable them to act as drains in the true sense of the word, keeping 
the permanent water plane near the level of their invert. The chief 
objection to this is the additional depth and cost resulting in build- 
ing them below the levels of cellars. The better way is to lay 
small drain tile for this purpose, directly below the storm drains, 
wherever local conditions require the draining of the land. 

The question of allowable velocities is not well understood, 
in spite of the fact that engineers have had to deal with it for cen- 
turies. Economy in construction requires that velocities be limited 
by only two things—the general slope of the surface and possible 
erosion of the invert. The writer is of the opinion that danger to 
the latter has been greatly overrated, and is conducting a series of 
studies at the present time with regard to maximum limits of 
velocity in hydraulic work. The probability is that 20 ft. per sec. 
over a good concrete surface is perfectly feasible. With good con- 
crete construction there is very little danger of the invert cutting 
out. On the other hand, the velocity must not be so low that the 
cost of attendance, in the way of cleaning and flushing, is unwar- 
rantably high. In the case of flat and low-lying territory, like New 
Orleans for example, this is sometimes overcome by occasional 
pumping stations. Present opinion favors a minimum velocity of 
20 in. per sec. during the lowest stages of sanitary sewers. A rule 
adopted by the writer is to allow 3 ft. per sec. when the sewer is 
half full, which accomplishes practically the same result and is 
readily applied when using tables or diagrams. 

Every one recognizes that capacity is a vital consideration ; 
but while it is of prime importance that sewers be adequate for 
present needs and future growth, it is not so generally recognized 
that if they are made unnecessarily large they will be less satis- 
factory owing to low velocities and high cost of maintenance. This 
is especially true during the period of years elapsing while the 
territory served is being built up. It is seldom feasible, as is so 
often done in the case of water supply mains, to supplement sewers 


5 


by constructing parallel ones some years later. For this reason it 
is evident that the planning of a system to remove the water from 
a municipality becomes urgent much earlier than comprehensive 
plans for its supply. 

Another essential is that the system be designed so as to mini- 
mize hand labor, cleaning the sewers‘as largely as possible by 
means of flushing with water. It is very desirable also that the 
flushing be by means of automatic flush tanks discharging at regu- 
lar intervals, special occasions only being taken care of by using 
the hose. It requires a large amount of water, even when pur- 
chased at a high rate from a private company, to equal the cost of 
inefficient day labor in the cleaning of sewers. 

As a final thought, there are two tests which may be applied in 
forming a judgment concerning a sewer system: that it shall pro- 
mote public health and prevent a nuisance, and that the first cost 
shall be as low as consistent with minimum maintenance charges. 


Disposing of Sewage.—lIt is usually held as a desideratum that 
disposal works be located to one side and at some distance from a 
city,—the farther the better. This last is true provided the added 
cost of construction and maintenance be balanced against any pos- 
sible nuisance which may be caused in the proximity of the works, 
with consequent deterioration of property values. It by no means 
follows that all of the sewage should be disposed of at one point, 
or even by the same method and to the same extent. 

A popular misconception is that the proper disposition of sew- 
age presupposes extensive and elaborate appliances; the fact being 
that it varies all the way from merely an outfall sewer into a stream 
of water requiring no attention whatever, to a complicated system 
of settling basins, septic tanks, filters and sludge disposal appliances, 
requiring a considerable force of skilled and common labor under 
the direction of scientific experts. The prime requisites are that it 
be efficient, simple, and economical. 


The Separate or Combined System.—After careful study has 
been made of the available methods of sewage disposal, it is then 
possible to logically consider the relative merits of the separate and 
the combined systems. This is seldom a problem as such, usually 
resolving itself into supplementing a combined system in the older 
parts of the city, and in the newer and unsewered portions using 
the one or the other, depending on local conditions, or frequently 
a judicious combination of the two. 

In addition to meeting natural conditions, these conclusions 
must largely satisfy the public point of view, or rather one’s judg- 
ment as to what that view is and is likely to become; and then com- 
paring cost ‘estimates of various tentative plans until a system is 
developed which may be built at as low a figure as is compatible 
with permanency and adequateness. 


Estimating the Amount of Sewage—To the lay mind, sewage 
is sewage wherever found; yet the composition of sewage in 


6 


America is noticeably unlike that of Europe, a marked difference 
appearing even in the cities of this country. This difference comes 
largely in the amount of dilution and in the relative proportions of 
sanitary sewage, trade wastes, and storm water runoff. Only the 
latter will be considered in this paper. 

The amount of storm water for which allowance should be 
made is generally determined by the application of some one of 
the well-known formulas, such as the McMath, Hering, Burtli- 
Ziegler, Parmley, Gregory, and others. A very elaborate determi- 
nation has lately been made by Mr. C. E. Grunsky, member of 
the American Society of Civil Engineers, in his studies regarding 
“The Sewer System of San Francisco and a Solution of the Storm 
Water Flow Problem”. One much easier of application, although 
not comparable in its analytic grasp of the subject, has been pro- 
posed by Mr. Carl H. Nordell, Bureau of Sewers, Borough of 
Queens, New York City. A method having somewhat similar 
features, and comprehensive in its treatment, has been developed 
by the writer and is being applied in the work at Kansas City. 

Whatever method is followed, it is necessary to assume some 
maximum precipitation for which the system will be designed. 
Then, from local conditions, estimate the runoff to be cared for by 
the different sewers. 


NECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS. 


Typical Sewer Lengths—By sewer length, in this connection, 
is meant the time required for water to flow through it, not its 
length in feet. Deciding upon typical lengths is a matter of judg- 
ment for each city, sometimes requiring to be changed in different 
portions of the same city. 

Where the grades are fairly steep, as in Pittsburg, Kansas City, 
and other places similarly situated, time intervals for main, branch, 
and lateral sewers may be tentatively assumed at 40, 20, and 10 
minutes respectively. In Chicago, New Orleans, and other cities 
having practically level streets, the periods may easily be 60, 30, 
and 15 minutes, or in extreme cases 2 hours, 1 hour, and % hour, 
unless there were outlets like the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, 
and Lake Pontchartrain, making the sewers very short. These 
cases are merely suggestive, and each city must be considered on 
its merits; in some cases two typical lengths will suffice, while in 
others four may be required. These time periods depend on both 
the absolute and relative length of the different sewers, as well 
as on the general shape of a city’s typical rain curves. 

A rigidly rational method would consider each sewer as an 
entity, treating it as though it were the only storm drain in the 
city. This would mean determining the time of surface concentra- 
tion, the perviousness of the surface, the frequency with which it 
would be permissible to flood it, a precipitation curve suited to its 
individual characteristics, and by means of trial solutions its actual 


7 


time length; all of which would be manifestly impossible with the 
funds available for such work. There is grave question whether 
the present state of our knowledge would warrant such elaborate 
treatment, even if taxpayers were willing to pay for it. 

On the other hand, a number of engineers have developed 
formulas with the hope of obviating many of the above difficulties. 
It is now pretty generally admitted that no arrangement of co- 
efficients is possible, which shall take into account all of the varying 
conditions and at the same time be sufficiently simple in its applica- 
tion; at least, that such efforts can be only a partial success until 
much more data have been secured from which deductions may be 
made. 

There would seem to be room, however, for rational effort 
somewhere between these two extremes of treating a city’s 
sewers as though they were all different or else all alike, and it is 
this middle ground which the writer has attempted to occupy. To 
lessen the work which would necessarily result if each sewer were 
treated independently, typical sewer lengths have been adopted; 
and to make certain of developing really typical rain curves, the 
question has been met squarely by deciding on definite surcharge 
periods, thus setting time limits when a city can better afford to 
have a sewer flooded than to pay for a larger one. 


Surcharge Periods——It is readily conceded that most cities 
cannot afford to build storm drains to care for their heaviest pre- 
cipitations. If this were attempted, Columbus, Ohio, would build 
for about 4 inches of rainfall, St. Louis and Milwaukee each for 
5 inches, while Kansas City has experienced a rate of over 7 inches 
per hour, the average for 40 minutes being nearly 6 inches. As 
averages for 10, 20, and 40 minutes, the rates given in Table II, 
were reached during the past 10 years by the cities mentioned. 

It is worth noting in the table that if one were designing for 
the Shreveport rains there would probably be no need for typical 
sewer lengths, as its intensity varied less than 5%, whether con- 
sidered for a period of 10 or of 40 minutes duration. Those at 
Kansas City and Topeka come next with a variation of about 15%, 
while the one at St. Louis varies nearly 40%. 

Whatever method is used in computing the required carrying 
capacity of the sewers, it is necessary either directly or indirectly 
to decide how frequently a city can afford to have its storm drains 
flooded rather than to build them larger, and by so doing further 
increase its burden of debt and expenditure. ‘This is a matter 
requiring greater judgment than any other confronting the 
engineer engaged in storm drain design. 

As a question of economics, it resolves itself into the total loss 
caused by flooding streets and cellars to a greater or less extent, 
set over against the interest on such additional expenditure as 
would have prevented the flooding. In this connection it is well 


8 


to remember that the loss considered must cover both the damage 
to property and the inconvenience which results. 

As just indicated, the most careful thought should be given 
this phase of the subject. Each city will necessarily work out its 
own surcharge periods, depending on the shape of its rain curves, 
its financial ability, and the attitude of the people toward mort- 
gaging the future. | 

In Kansas City it has been decided to design main sewers with 
the expectation of flooding every 10 years, branch sewers every 
5 years, and laterals every 2 years. At first thought this seems 
too frequent in the case of laterals, but when it is borne in mind 
that they must be designed for 10 minute precipitations, and so must 
be much larger proportionally than either branch or main sewers, 
and that flooding in their case means simply carrying the water 
somewhat further in the gutters, it is readily perceived that true 
economy is served by making the time interval short. 

Permeability of Surface—It is now universally conceded that 
the perviousness of areas is only second in importance to the rate 
of precipitation, as a controlling factor in storm water runoff; 
since the runoff equals the precipitation less the perviousness. 

The writer believes it preferable to estimate perviousness as 
depth in inches per hour which a given surface will absorb, rather 
than a given percentage of the rainfall, since there is little differ- 
ence in the rate of absorption whether the rainfall be light or heavy, 
so long as the intensity of the downpour equals or exceeds the 
rate at which the surface is capable of absorbing it. 

Perviousness depends on the kind and depth both of the sur- 
face soil and the sub-soil, and whether the surface is barren, covered | 
with grass, or paved. Paved areas are usually considered im- 
pervious, but are only relatively so. This is demonstrated by the 
fact that the runoff from so-called impervious areas never equals 
the total precipitation. 

In all probability the curve of perviousness is never a straight 
line; however, as a working basis, to be corrected later by the 
results of gaging, it has been assumed in Kansas City that paved 
surfaces absorb water at the rate of 0.50 in. per hour at the be- 
ginning of a storm, decreasing to 0.25 at the end of 15 minutes, and 
to 0.00 at the end of 60 minutes; that lawns and other grass sur- 
faces absorb 0.75 in. at the beginning, decreasing to 0.50 at the end 
of 30 minutes, and to 0.00 at the end of 120 minutes; that garden 
and other barren soils absorb 1.00 in. at the beginning, decreasing 
to 0.75 at the end of 30 minutes, and to 0.00 at the expiration of 
120 minutes. This is shown graphically in Fig. 3. 


Surface Concentration.—The time required for surface concen- 
tration depends on the distance to catch basins and the mean slope 
of the surface. In calculations involving this time, the velocity 
of flow at Kansas City was assumed, from the meager data avail- 
able, to be 100 ft. per min. for an unpaved surface having a slope 


9 


of 5 ft. to the hundred; other slopes being in proportion. Paved 
surfaces were assumed at twice the velocity. 

The type of runoff tract used is 330 x 660 ft., being a standard 
city block. With this as a basis, three typical areas were worked 
out as follows: Type I, having 20% of paved surface and two- 
thirds of the remainder barren. Type II, 50% paved and equal 
portions of barren and lawn surface. Type III, 80% paved and 
one-third of the remainder barren. 

These are proving satisfactory for study purposes and tenta- 
tive designs. They give one, two, and three blocks as the respective 
distances which require 5 minutes, where the slope is 5%. 


A RATIONAL SOLUTION. 
Rainfall Data.—There can be no doubt that more grave errors 
in storm drain design have been due to lack of reliable and complete 


° 1° 20 30 40 so / 60 7° 
Time in Minutes 


FIG.3- CURVES OF PERVIOUSNESS 


information than to all other causes combined. This realization 
led the writer, during the preliminary studies in Kansas City, to 
devote much time and thought to gathering and compiling ex- 
haustive rainfall data. 

Since automatic records have been kept for but little more 
than a decade, the records from a single city are insufficient for 
reliable work, so data have been gathered and tabulated from the 
entire watershed of the Mississippi River, as shown in Fig. 1. All 
weather bureaus having automatic records extending over a period 
of 5 years or more have contributed their heavier precipitations, 
and the information here presented is believed to be both reliable 
and complete. 

A careful study of the question has led the writer to conclude 
that for ranking rains in the order of their intensities, the method 
of average precipitation is at once simple and adequate, therefore 
satisfactory. This method has been used in preparing the following 


10 


tables. They were computed for the 40, 20, and 10 minute periods 
by the use of the planimeter, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the areas being 
taken between the vertical lines, which are equal maximum ordi- 
nates enclosing the given time intervals. 

The first step, then, after the records are gathered and plotted, 
is to determine the average intensity of each rain for the different 
time intervals. It should not be lost sight of that these averages 
in no wise enter into the computations of sewer discharge, but are 


| BISMARCK 


Cy, 


{e) 
5 
Beas 
PIKANSAS 
KA IciTy 
6 


10 


OP 
WICHITA 


| SPRINGFIELD 


@SHREVEPORT 


VICKSBURG 
U.S.WEATHER BUREAUS iS 


@ Record less thon 5 Years. 
@ Record 5 Yeors or over. 


CO 
( 


EW ORLEANS 
Fig. 1. Map Showing U. S. Gauging Stations. 


used merely in the arrangement of the tables. Tables III, IV, and 
V contain the data so arranged. 


Typical Precipitation Curves.—The matter of greatest impor- 
tance in planning and designing a storm sewer system is the deter- 
mination of typical precipitation curves. The exercise of judgment 
comes mainly in the selection of surcharge periods, the following 
work being largely a question of mathematics. 


11 


It is essential that the rainfall data be from automatic gages 
which record the depth in inches falling each five minutes. This 
makes it possible to plot curves showing both the total and rate of 
precipitation, the usual way being to use time as abscissas and rates 
per hour as ordinates. 

It is unnecessary to plot the records of all rains, as much time 
and labor can be saved by setting a minimum limit below which 
rains will be omitted. The choice of this in no way affects the 
validity of the method or the correctness of the results secured. 
For the Mississippi Valley, and the Middle West generally, very 
satisfactory limits are as follows: a precipitation of 0.25 in. during 
some five minutes of the storm and a total precipitation of at 
least an inch of rainfall. 

In order to present clearly the method of computing a typical 
rain curve, a simple illustration will be used. Suppose a city 
has ten rains in ten years; it is clear that the‘hardest one occurred 
once in the ten years; that one equal to or exceeding the next 
hardest occurred every five years, for it and the hardest both 
occurred during the ten years, or an average of every five years 
for the one or the other. The same line of reasoning shows that 
one equal to or exceeding the fifth hardest occurred every two 
years. 

The method is still logical no matter how many rains 
occurred, and if the ten hardest are used, being as many as the 
number of years considered, it determines what rains may -be 
expected to flood the sewers for any surcharge periods selected. 
Since data are used from different gaging stations, it becomes 
necessary to reduce their records to a common basis. Probably 
10 is the most convenient one to use, so this will be employed 
throughout the discussion. If the record has been kept for 
more than 10 years, say 11 for example, each rain must be 
weighted by 10/11, using the actual intensity, but taking 11 
instead of 10 rains into account. Likewise, if the record is avail- 
able for only 6 years, each rain must be weighted by 10/6. It is 
hardly necessary to mention: that the longer the record the 
more satisfactory its use, since interpolating is always preferable- 
to exterpolating. If some number other than 10 years had been 
selected as standard, the numerator of the above fractions would ° 
correspond. 

Another point needs to be considered at this time; all 
engineers will agree that cities situated in the same drainage 
basin may be expected to show rain curves somewhat similar in 
form and intensity, so that the records of all such cities may 
properly be considered in estimating future probabilities; they 
will likewise agree that a city’s own rains will be a truer index 
of what may be expected in the future than the precipitations at 
other places several hundred miles distant. For this reason, the 
records have been weighted, giving Kansas City a weight of 7; 


12 


cities within 100 miles 6, 200 miles 5, and so on, until those at a 
distance greater than 500 miles, but still within the Mississippi 
Valley, are given a weight of 1. 

Table VI, gives the final weights of the different cities, and 
the method of their computation. These have been obtained as 
follows: the number of years for which rains are considered is 
divided by the length of time the record is available, and this 
quotient is multiplied by the distance weight of the city. For - 
Topeka, Kansas, this gives 


10+ 8% xk 6=7. 


With surcharge periods of 10, 5, and 2 years already deter- 
mined upon, the Total final weight is multiplied by 1, 2, and 5 


GER PGE RRES RSS SARA ORRS RAH ROAL ORES Ee SAARI Nese 
HRSEE RP EASAS ID FROM IA AG RAO RSS MRE BUCHOS HARSH saa seeses 
Cy BE BERR SEDSERNAHEROIAa eI 
ERBECRAABESD PARRA ANUE APRON LR eos 
SER BUSKSS’ GRRE RS FHSS SE SSO ASNAS ZARA ASS 


HH 
4 
RCO 


a 
tT 
[TY 
= 
‘4 


| 
[| 
Y) 

eH 
YT 
Bees 
pele 
oo 
rH 


Time in Minutes 


FIG. 2= PRECIPITATION CURVE, COLUMBIA,MO., 


(obtained by dividing 10 by 10, 5, and 2) as given at the bottom. 
of Table VI. This gives partial totals of 149 to be used with 
Table III, 298 with Table IV, and 745 with Table V. Opposite 
these in the tables we find 2.62, 3.26, and 3.42, which are the 
average intensities of the three typical precipitation curves. 

It now remains to determine the form of each of these curves. 
The 40 minute curve will be used to illustrate the operation. 
This is best seen by reference to Table IX, where it will be 
noticed that ten weights above and ten below have been used. 
Either more or less rains might have been used, depending on 
the judgment of the engineer as to how many are required to 
derive a curve which shall be truly typical in shape. Since the 


13 


intensity for the period is in no wise affected, a comparatively large 
error in judgment results in but slight error in design, thus reducing 
the personal equation to a minimum. 

Table VII, gives the rains thus selected. The amount of 
precipitation for each 5 minutes is given, with the beginnings 
of the rains directly under each cther. In Table VIII, these are 
arranged symmetrically with regard to their maximum inten- 
sities, since this arrangement is best adapted to obtaining a curve 
which shall most nearly represent them in its form character- 
istics. 

In Table IX, the same arrangement is preserved, but the 
different values are multiplied by the respective weights of the 
rains taken from Table III. The columns are then added and 
the sums divided by 20, since a total of twenty weights was used. 
In order to obtain ordinate values for plotting, these quotients 
are multiplied by 12 so as to get rates per hour. These rates 


ae. 
[| VA 
| TAZ 

LAL | 
448) 
AT 
aan 
a8 


Time in Minutes 


FIG. 5- RESULTANT CURVE FOR 40 MIN. PERIOD 


are given in the last line, the curve being shown by the lighter 
line of Fig. 5. This gives the correct form of the typical pre- 
cipitation curve desired, but not necessarily its magnitude, which 
may be either more or less. In the present instance the curve 
has to be increased slightly in intensity, this being done so as to 
make the rate for 40 minutes 2.62 in. per hour, as given in the 
table. The final curve is shown by the heavier line in the 
figure. 

As previously suggested, the method contemplates the use 
of a precipitation curve for each typical sewer length, varying 
in number probably from one to four in different cities. To make 
the need for this apparent, suppose the rain curve for 40 minute 
sewers were used for 20 and 10 minute sewers, it would in effect 
greatly reduce their surcharge periods. 


14 


Taking the rain immediately above 2.62, which is the average 
intensity for 40 minute sewers, the Partial Totals in the different 
tables are found to be 149, 796, and 1241. Dividing each of these 
by 149 gives 1, 5.35, and 8.33; then dividing 10 by each of these 
gives 10, 1.86, and 1.20. In other words, the 40 minute sewer 
would be flooded every ten years (which had been assumed), 
the 20 minute sewer a little oftener than every two years and the 
10 minute sewer a little more frequently than once every fifteen 
months. 

Or take the illustration the other way; suppose the rain 
curve for 10 minute sewers were used for 40 and 20 minute drains, 
it would have the effect of increasing their surcharge. periods. 
The average intensity would then be 3.42, opposite 35, 229, and 
745 in the columns of partial totals. Dividing as before gives 
final quotients of 42.6, 6.5, and 2; which means that the different 
classes of sewers would be flooded about every 40, 6, and 2 years 
respectively. 

The tables can readily be used to determine the surcharge 
periods for any desired intensity of rain. If a precipitation can 
be found which will give satisfactory surcharge periods for the 
different classes of sewers, it would in effect reduce them to one. 
This is the ideal condition, but should not be expected to occur 
often in practice. 


Designing the Sewers—With the time length of a sewer 
approximated and the typical rain determined, it is then only 
necessary to decide from this rain curve the amount of runoff 
which will reach the sewer from each runoff tract, and use this 
in conjunction with the grade that can be secured. With these 
data in hand, the size of sewer and velocity of flow are readily 
computed. 

Referring to Fig. 4, it illustrates how the runoff from the 
different tracts is combined so as to obtain a cumulative effect 
comparable with actual conditions. It will be noticed that the 
calculations are all graphical, this method being simple, rapid, 
and of sufficient accuracy. The different values might be added, 
but the work would be laborious and there would be greater dan- 
ger of errors creeping in. By repeating this process wherever 
more water enters the sewer, the required size is synthetically 
built up. 

With the velocity of flow determined, the time is computed 
which will be required for the water to flow from the first catch 
basin to the second, or to where another sewer joins it, the 
writer’s practice being to compute time lengths for periods of 
five minutes or over, using the nearest five minutes in adjusting 
the curves. Whenever our knowledge of surface concentration 
shall have become sufficiently definite, it will be advisable to 
work to minute intervals instead of only to five minutes. 

A curve is then drawn which in magnitude equals the typical 


15 


curve multiplied by the area drained, for each of the runoff tracts, 
the second one being moved toward the right as many minutes 
as the time required for the water to flow from the first point 
to the second. This is shown in the figure by Tract 1 and Tract 2. 
The two curves are then combined by making a new one with 
ordinates equal to the sum of their ordinates above the lines of 
Perviousness. This new curve represents the flow below the 
junction point. 

When the outlet is reached, the shape and magnitude of the 
last curve gives a correct graphical representation of the resulting 
flow to be expected at this point. At first glance it would seem 


an 

an 

i+ 4 A 
SSF eeeeneed aa 0355 S5' 2S doe eee eee eee ~ Sees 


Time in Minutes 


FiG.4@ - CUMULATIVE METHOO OF COMBINING OISCHARGES. 


that much time would be consumed. On the contrary, it is sur- 
prising how rapidly and certainly results can be obtained. 

To design a sewer for any part of the city, always begin 
with the laterals and work toward the branches and from that 
to the main sewers. In other words, follow with the computa- 
tions the order followed by the water in filling sewers. When- 
ever advisable the method may be combined with the use of any 
of the formulas already mentioned. 7 


Numbering Sewers——lf some simple and yet rational system 
of numbering sewer districts be adopted, it not only saves a 
great deal of inconvenience but much lost time and frequent 
errors. This may be illustrated by the method proposed for 


16 


Kansas City. By charter the entire territory within the corporate 
limits is divided into sewer divisions and these into sewer dis- 
tricts. For purposes of designing, the divisions are subdivided 
into drainage areas, these into runoff tracts, and these again into 
sewer districts. See Fig. 6. 

Including the new territory, eight divisions are being pro- 
posed for the city. These are being divided into drainage areas, 
not to exceed nine for each division; these again into runoff 
tracts, not to exceed nine for each area; the tracts being divided 
in the same way into sewer districts, the highest possible num- 
ber being 8999. As a matter of convenience, the numbers follow 
up the sewers. This can best be illustrated by an example. 

Sewer district number 5439 means that it is located in division 5, 
drainage area 4 of this division, runoff tract 3 of this area, and 
sewer district number 9 in this tract. It also shows that the 
property embraced within its limits is located near the center 
of the city, otherwise it would not be in division 5; that it is near 
the middle of that division, being area No. 4; that it is in the 
lower part of the area and the highest part of the tract, as indi- 
cated by the figures 3 and 9. 

It is not only of great advantage in at once locating a sewer, 
since the sewer has the same number as the district which it 
serves, but is of equal importance while designing, since each 
sewer flows into one of a lower number, thus avoiding occasion 
for mistakes and so insuring accuracy and rapidity in the work. 


Essentials of the Method Outlined—The emphasis in the 
method proposed above is placed on the following points: 

Surcharge periods. 

Typical sewer lengths. 

A typical rain curve for each sewer type. 

Method of deducing these curves. 

Method of estimating perviousness. 

Cumulative method of sewer computation. 

Most of the earlier attempts to solve the storm flow problem 
considered these same features, although frequently not with 
such explicitness, as the requirements were not then so well 
understood. Aside from the method of estimating the pervious- 
ness, only brief consideration is given to the subjects of per- 
meability and time of surface concentration, since these phases: 
of the question still wait on the gathering of more data, so that 
something approaching complete and reliable information may 
be at hand. 


Points Which Commend the Above Method.—It follows nature 
in being cumulative in results obtained. 

.It is a combined analytic and synthetic method. 

The direction of storms can readily be allowed for. 

It is adapted to any degree of refinement. 

There is no uncertainty as to where maximum periods occur. 


17 


PLAN 
OF 
MAIN SEWERS 
KANSAS CITY, MO 


Seo/e 32 Miles 


SEAN BART BALCOMBE 
ENGINGER & CNAROE 


GeoW FucterR, 
Consucting ENGine er 


r- 
' 
' 
1 
‘ 
' 
' 
1 
1 
i} 
' 
‘ 
' 
' 
' 
’ 
‘ 
’ 
1 
‘ 
‘ 


Fig. 6. Plan of Main Sewers—Kansas City, Mo. 


18 


It can be used to solve the problem independently, or in con- 
junction with any other method. 

Wherever it is necessary to exercise judgment, the condi- 
tions to be met are definite and certain. 

No averages are used in computing capacities, the actual rain 
variations being followed. 

_ There are no coefficients to be approximated, with conse- 

quent probability of large and uncertain errors. 

It does not depend on formulas or difficult mathematical 
determinations, yet secures results agreeing with the facts up to 
the limits of the data available. 


ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND RESULTS TO BE EXPECTED. 


Materials of Construction—The decision as to what materials 
to use in construction has been controlled largely in the past, and 
still is to some extent, by the materials manufactured or for sale 
by local firms, through political affiliations, and social friendships. 
This is being greatly lessened owing to a closer study of the sub- 
ject my municipal hydraulic engineers, and a larger interest and 
better understanding by the general public of the needs and 
requirements of a thoroughly up-to-date sewerage system. 

It may be a matter of surprise to some that rectangular 
wooden sewers have been built in a number of instances and 
have given excellent service through a term of years, but finally 
becoming at least indirectly a public nuisance. It is not be be 
supposed that any engineer would recommend such construction 
today, as the defects of wood for this purpose are now well 
recognized. : 

For large sewers, brick was well-nigh universally used until 
concrete was found to be a much better material. The use of 
brick is growing less and less, owing to the large number of 
joints and the lack of tensile strength in the completed structure. 
This is emphatically true unless the sewers are lined with cement 
mortar. A special invert is also required as many serious cases 
of erosion are on record. The chief reasons for using brick were 
its cheapness, its availability, the supply of suitable skilled labor, 
and the ease with which vitrified brick or Belgian blocks could 
be laid in the invert, after this was found necessary in order to 
avoid their cutting out where even moderate velocities were 
used. 

For small sewers, it is generally agreed that vitrified pipe, 
with bell and spigot joint well caulked and then filled with 
portland cement mortar, is the best material at hand. At the 
same time it is fully recognized that such frequent joints make it 
an undesirable material, partly because it is almost impossible 
to inspect each individual joint in its entirety, and partly because 
it is, to say the least, very inconvenient to do good work and 
make the joints water tight. When laid on steep slopes, the 


19 


joints, being of a material foreign to the pipe and adhering only 
fairly well, make natural places for erosion to begin. This fre- 
quently continues until water finds its way in or out of the sewer, 
depending on the level of the water table at different seasons of 
the year. 

The present concensus of engineering opinion favors the use 
of concrete, generally reinforced, and either monolithic or in the 
form of pipe, for nearly all sewers larger than 30 inches inside 
diameter. Sewers 24 inches to 30 inches are still debatable 
ground. Concrete pipe with longitudinal bar reinforcement 
possesses many of the characteristics which must obtain in the 
sewer construction material of the future. It is to be hoped that 
a substitute for vitrified pipe may be found, or that a better joint 
may be devised, or else that it may be found feasible to construct 
small sizes of concrete pipe with an entirely satisfactory method 
of joining them. 


Contracts and Specifications——Much good work has been done 
along this line in the past few years, and yet the present forms 
of contract and specifications are far from satisfactory. In a 
letter to Engineering-Contracting, published February 10, 1909, the 
writer made the following statement, which has not thus far been 
questioned, and which he wishes to reiterate in the present. in- 
stance: 

“Tn order to draw up an equitable contract, or judge of 
one that is drawn, the first requisite is that it shall be fair to 
both parties, assuming them both to be honest and actuated 
by right motives. The second is to have it formulated so 
there is no motive for dishonesty by either party—so that 
whether an honest or dishonest course is followed it will 
result in a gain or loss to both parties, never a gain to one 
and a loss to the other.” 

Of the various modifications and forms proposed, the one 
which seems to be entirely adequate, and at the same time 
adapted to existing needs and conditions, may best be described 
as follows: Cost plus a fixed sum, with bonus and forfeit clause 
regarding both the time limit and the total expenditures; all 
extras to be paid for by cost plus a percentage. 


Inspection.—With the old form of contract, it had become 
tacitly understood that laxity of inspection would counterbalance 
rigor of contract. The result has been that it often did far more 
than this. Whereas the specifications called for practically a 
perfect sewer, the actual construction fell unwarrantably below 
even reasonable requirements. | 

On the other hand, with the more reasonable forms of con- 
tract now coming into vogue, it is beginning to be possible to 
make the work of the inspector something more than a matter 
of form, and to really get sewers built very closely in accordance 
with the designs. The writer is firmly of the belief that a reason- 


20 


able contract with honest inspection will correct many of the 
evils from which urban communities now suffer. 


Maintenance.—The maintenance and repair of sewers, having 
been entirely removed from the engineering department in all of 
the larger cities, will be passed with a single thought. 

While the day labor employed by cities is in many cases 
better than it formerly was, yet it is frequently untrustworthy 
and cannot be depended upon to carry out regulations regarding 
cleaning and flushing sewers. Also, it is notoriously inefficient. 
For the sake of economy, it is advisable to place automatic flush 
tanks at practically all dead ends, and to construct street inlets 
rather than catch basins, except where the latter are absolutely 
necessary, depending mainly on flushing to keep the sewers clean. 
It is also advisable, in sanitary sewers, to see that the building 
regulations require a vent from the soil pipe to the roof of each 
building, so that when sanitary sewage conveyed by the separate 
system has once passed the trap inside of the building, there shall 
be no other traps until it is finally discharged through the outfall 
sewer or at the disposal works. 


Degree of Accuracy.—Engineers are prone to approach this 
problem as though it could be solved exactly. This is the 
desideratum, but it cannot be even closely approximated until 
much more experimental work has been done and a large amount 
of additional data has been gathered, so that judgments may be 
formed, rules formulated, and the practice standardized. 

Engineers go to great lengths to determine the exact daily 
consumption per capita and the amounts of water used by manu- 
facturing concerns, so as to know very closely the amount of 
house sewage and trade wastes; then very largely guess at the 
amount of seepage water, after which the figures are increased 
perhaps 50% to allow for periods of maximum flow; and then 
the sewer is designed, so that on the basis of these computations 
it will run two-thirds or three-fourths full during maximum flow. 

In order to arrive at the amount of runoff, engineers make 
careful estimates of the perviousness of the surface, its general 
slope and the time of surface concentration; and then arbitrarily 
assume some depth of rain which may or may not closely 
approximate the maximum rainfall for that city, or some pre- 
determined amount less than this maximum. 

This is all necessary, and the writer warmly endorses doing 
all such work as accurately as possible, laying stress on the 
refinement of details as rapidly as our knowledge warrants such 
action, but it should not be expected that absolutely correct 
results have been attained, after all this is done. Neither is it 
to be inferred that in this respect the hydraulic engineer is 
behind the structural, mechanical, or other engineers of the pro- 
fession. 


21 


A sewer system should be designed for 25 years, for 50 years, 
for all time; and engineers accomplish this with a remarkably 
small margin of error. Yet no one would think of expecting an 
architect or structural engineer to build a factory so that it 
would handle a small output economically and at the same time 
be capable of caring for the unknown future growth of the busi- 
ness. If in the erection of a steel frame building or in the con- 
struction of a machine, where working conditions are pre-deter- 
mined and the strength and properties of the steel may be found 
out completely in the laboratory and testing machine, it is 
deemed necessary to allow factors of safety from 3 to 20; 
hydraulic engineers are to be congratulated, since many of the 
conditions with which they deal are difficult and some of them 
practically impossible to determine, yet withal satisfactory 
results are achieved. 


22 


Table I. 
N Drainage. 
aa ; Irrigation. 
¥ by Waterworks. 
Municipal ! Sewerage. 


Hydraulic Engineering 


Table 


City. 
Kansas City, 
St. Louis, 


Topeka, Kans:..... 
Shreveport, La..... 


City. 

Kansas City, Mo.. 
Milwaukee, Wis... 
slireveport, sila 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 
St. “Louis; Mo:57- 
Columbus, O...... 
Topeka, Kans.... 

topeka) ssansieasa. 
St.” Paul, “Minn. : 
Little Rock, Ark.. 
Carros ieee ss 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 
Columbia, Mo..... 
Little Rock, Ark... 
Cairo, 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Davenport, Ta:...-. 
Omaha, N 
Columbus: Ones 
Wichita, Kans... ... 


City. 

Shreveport, La.... 
New Orleans, fas 
Springfield, Mo... 
Topeka, Kans... .+ 
Little Rock, Ark.. 
Hannibal, 
Wichita, Kans.... 

Nashville, Tenn... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Little Rock, Ark... 
Milwaukee, Wis... 


Cincinnal, VOe.. 
Diabudue lars... 
Shreveport, La.... 
Emcoln we iNebsa.. 


New Orleans, La.. 


Wigs 
Milwaukee, IVY 1Sten ce, 
Ft.) Worth] lex... 
Catto, (LU ee ie. 


§ Water 


Power | Electrical. 
_ {Harbor improvements. 
Transportation {Ship canals. 


River improvement. 


II. Heavy PREcIPITATIONS, 


Fietp CovERED BY HypRAULIC ENGINEERING. 


Givinc Rates PER Hour. 


Time Periods. 


Date 10 min. 
nie oie, ajece tere ate a Feietotenets ate 8-23-06 6.78 in. 
Sug: mfoedate o oe elas aerate tek 7 -8-28 6.03 in. 
wide ete ate ‘cle cisahene tert tarene 6-24-04 5.78 in. 
clon Ab tials © Shines OREOTe 9-21-00 4.90 in. 
apate rs eliouereelenstet tier eacetectels 6-28-05 4.74 in. 
OS aisie alee Se eien eee 7-11-97 4.57 in. 
Bie le te rehaa eich io ite ohete ketene 7-11-03 4.42 in. 
SA TAC CERO ERC 8- 2-03 4.02 in. 
ett Oo RCI Fiche 7-23-05 8.86 in. 

Table III. 


HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. 
40 MINUTES, 


Avy. Par- 
Rate Final tial 


Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 


20 min. 40 min. 
6.48 in. 6.79 in, 
4.92 in. 3.66 in. 
4.64 in. 8.98: in. 
4.14 in. 8.70 ink 
8.84 in. 8.82 in. 
rilikeebae Fs geo Be 
3.98 in. 3.36 in. 
8.72 in. 3.48 in. 
Sif pee aals $:70ein? 

Av. Par- 


Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 


8-23-06 5.79 7 7 Dodge City, Kans.. 6- 7-99 2.94 38 87 
6-24-04 3.98 2 9 Wichita, Kans..... 9-17-05 2.92 10 97 
7-23-05 3.70 4 13 Louisville, Ky..... 8- 8-98 2.90 2 99 
9-21-00 3.70 8 16 New Orleans, La.. 3-17-04 2.86 1 100 
7- 8-98 3.66 4 20 Nashville, Tenn... 8-21-02 2.82 2 102 
Veet e step? Mal 21 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-01 2.81 1 £103 
8-02-03 3.48 7 28 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-01 2.81 1 £104 
9-13-01 3.40 7 35 Columbia, Mo..... 8-25-00 2.78 5 109 
8- 9-02 3.36 2 Sif Oklahoma = Gaetcy. 
7-11-03 3.36 3 40 Oklawee ee ett cen 6- 4-04 2.78 4 113 
6-28-05 3.32 3 43 Little Rock, Ark..11-28-05 2.78 3 116 
3-25-04 3.20 3 46 Kansas City, Mo... 9-14-05 2.77 7 123 
5-31-02 3.20 5 51 Evansville, Ind.... 8-14-06 2.74 4 127 
5- 8-00 3.14 3 54 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-97 2.72 2 129 
6-18-99 3.10 3 57 New Orleans, La.. 7-11-04 2.71 iy 130 
6- 8-04 3.10 38 60) One ta nom iaerCity, 
8-25-04 3.09 1 61 Ollaveenen cee 5-29-05 2.70 4 134 
8-26-07 3.06 7 68 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-14-07 2.67 i) 139 
7- 6-98 3.03 5 73 Evansville, Ind.... 9- 2-00 2.66 4 143 
6-23-01 3.02 1 74 Lexington, Ky.... 8-22-00 2.65 1 144 
7- 6-04 2.96 10 84 Columbia, Mo..... 8-22-05 2.65 5 149 
(149 weighted rains occur every 10 years.) 
Av. Par- Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 
6- 1-06 2.62 4 Los Springfield, Mo... 7-19-06 2.44 10 224 
3-14-03 2.60 1 154 Davenport, Ia..... 9- 9-03 2.44 {é 231 
7-26-05 2.58 10 164 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-05 2.48 2 233 
6-24-03 2.58 fe Lie. Ft. Worth, Tex.... 5- 2-06 -2.40 3 236 
5-21-98 2.56 3 174 Memphis, Tenn.... 8- 9-05 2.38 3 239 
5-26-06 2.54 5 179 Nashville, Tenn... 9- 4-06 2.38 2 241 
6-15-05 2.58 10 £189 Nashville, Tenn... 6- 9-08 2.88 2 248 
9- 1-00 2.53 2 191 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 2.37 ik 244 
8-14-03 2.51 1 192 Columbia, Mo..... 5-25-03 2.37 5 249 
9-15-98 2.50 3 £195 Milwaukee, Wis.. 9-17-07 2.36 2 251 
9- 2-00 2.50 2 197 Lincoln, Neb..... 8-15-00 2.32 6 257 
7- 5-97 2.50 1 198 Dodge City, Kans.. 8-18-04 2.32 3 260 
8-15-07 2.50 5 208 #£=Kansas City, -Mo 9- 9-03 2.32 7 267 
6-27-02 2.47 4 207 Oklahoma City, 
5-10-05 2.45 6 213 Okla ai. Se eee 5- 5-99 2.32 4 271 
8-14-03 2.44 1 214 Dodge City, Kans.. 7-19-97 2.82 3° 274 


23 


Av. Par- Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial Rate Final tial 
City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. Date. per hr. Wt. Ts. 
New Orleans, La.. 8- 5-98 2.30 1 275 Oklahoma City 
Kansas City, Mo... 3-24-04 2.30 7 282 2) 2 are Le Bae oe 8-28-00 1.87 4 543 
PESTON ede Ds dates 8- 8-04 2.30 2 284 Maron So2D-. 4.8 6-24-02 1.86 2 545 
New Orleans, La.. 7-11-06 2.99 1 285 Topeka, Kans..... 9-22-02 1.85 7 552 
Kansas City, Mo.. 7-14-07 2.26 7 2992 Louisville, Ky.... 7-10-97 1.84 2 554 
Dodge City, Kans.. 7-21-07 2.26 3 295 Columbus; Q.. 20. 7-19-00 1.84 1 555 
Barons Ssh. oo, 5 6-27-05 2.26 2 297 Nashville, Tenn... 7-11-97 1.84 2 557 
La Crosse, Wis.... 7- 9-03 2.26 5 302 Columbia, Mo.....10- 6-00 1.84 5 562 
Columbia, Mo..... 6-25-99 2.24 5 307 Lincoln, Nebzs... 8 7-07 1.84 6 568. 
Shreveport, La.... 4-11-05 9.24 4 311 Lincoln, Neb..... 7-22-02 1.84 6 574 
+ ankton, “S.'D.... 8-23-06) 9:99" "3S! sia St. Paul, Minn.... 9- 5-04 1.84 2 576 
St. Louis; Mo..... 8- 6-07 -2:20° 4 318 Kansas City, Mo... 9- 5-98 1.84 7 583 
Little Rock, Ark... 6- 1-98 2.20 3 321 Davenport, Ia..... 9-14-03 1.84 7 590 
Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.20 5 326 Des Moines, Ia.... 4-22-97 1.83 5 595 
Milwaukee, Wis... 8-23-98 2.20 2 328 Omalia, Neby 20); 6-26-06 1.82 5 600 
Gincinnati, (O.05.' 7-22-06 2.19 1 3829 New Orleans, La.. 8-12-06 1.82 1 601 
Dodge City, Kans.. 6-17-06 2.18 3 382 Ft. Worth, Tex.... 8-11-06 1.82 8 604 
St. Paul, Minn.... 7-30-04 2.16 2 334 Cincinnati, O..... 8- 3-00 1.81 1 605 
Wichita, Kans.... 7-14-04 2.16 10 344 Chiearo; Tl. : 25% 7-28-06 1.80 2 607 
Evansville, Ind.... 9- 2-04 2.16 4 348 St. Paul, Minn.... 7-25-97 1.80 2 609 
Columbia, Mo..... 9-17-05 2.15 5 353 New Orleans, La.. 6- 7-04 1.80 1 610 
eureveport, (Lat.i4) 6--7-07 £2.14 4. (4957 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 4-06. 1.80 7 617 
Columbia, Mo..... 6-14-98 2.12 5 362 Little Rock, Ark.. 4-24-05 1.78 3 620 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 3-31-04 2.12 2 364 New Orleans, La.. 6-20-00 1.78 1 621 
Cairo Rss eG 6-22-97 2.11 3 367 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-00 1.78 3 624 
New Orleans, La.. 5-23-07 2.10 1 368 Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 7-98 1.76 5 629 
St. Paul, Minn.... 8-18-07 2.10 2 370 Huron, © SD. co 8 S-01l eb 76). 9 68) 
New: Orleans, “La:. 4-17-01 9.08 —"1 “S717 O'klaham a City 
Ft. Smith, Ark... 6-30-07 2.08 7 378 TAS 9. tah wine aot 8- 7-06 1.76 4 635 
Des Moines, Ia.... 7-18-04 2.08 5 383 Wasi, Nei. ov f. 7-15-00 1.75 5 640 
New Orleans, La.. 9-16-01 2.06 1 384 Indianapolis, Ind.. 6- 4-06 1.75 2 642 
Oklahoma City Columbia, Mo..... 4-24-04 1.74 5 647 
2) ee 5-23-03 2.06 4 388 Wichita, Kans.... 6- 2-04 1.74 10 657 
Yankton, S. D..... 9-20-02 2.06 3 391 ot. Goais,, Mo... : 7. 7-29-08 1.73 4 661 
Valentine, Neb.... 7-21-04 2.06 3 394 Dodge City, Kans.. 5-13-98 1.72 3 664 
Kansas City, Mo.. 8- 2-05 2.06 7 401 New Orleans, La.. 3-19-05 1.72 1 665 
Evansville, Ind.... 7-20-04 2.06 4 405 Nashville, Tenn... 6-27-04 1.72 2 667 
Dodge City, Kans.. 7-23-99 2.06 3 408 Shreveport, *“Ta.. '"4> 9-05) Are" ‘a 971 
Shreveport, La.... 5- 3-06 2.05 4 412 Shreveport, [La.... 5-21-05 ° “1.72 4°” 675 
Valentine, Neb.... 7- 9-07 2.04 3 415 furon, S. D...... 8-18-04 1.71°°2 677 
Memphis, Tenn.... 7-16-06 2.04 3 418 Bismarck, N. D... 6-13-01 1.71 _1 678 
Cairo, Ill... cesses 6 7-00 2.04 3 421 Kansas City, Mo... 7- 7-02 1.71 7 685 
St. Paul, Minn... 6-12-99 2.04 2 423 Columbus, O..... 6-14-04 1.71 1 686 
New Orleans, La.. 7- 4-08 2.04 1 424 Shreveport, La... 7.28.08 1.70 4 690 
Yankton. S. D.... 7-15-00 2.04 3 427 Columbia, Mo..... 7-18-02 1.68 5 695 
Springfield, Mo... 6-24-06 2.083 10 487 Dodge City, Kans.. 8- 6-03 1.68 3 698 
oummbus, Ou... 7-28-02 2.02 1 488 Springfield, Mo.... 8- 7-06 1.68 10 708 
Dodge City, Kans.. 8- 6-98 2.02 3 441 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5- 3-04 168 3 711 
Columbia, Mo..... 9-18-04 2.02 5 446 CRIP Oise Liles eo ctrraie 7-30-01 168 3 1714 
Kansas City, Mo... 5-23-02 2.02 7 453 Dubuque, Ia. .... 9-25-04 1.68 5 719 
New Orleans, La.. 7-15-01 2.01 1 454 nie, vawer feea ee ce) : ite 
ichi -2()- tittle IKhock, Ark... 8-25- ‘ 
Wichita, pean. vay * 5-20-03 2.00 10 464 Tadiandpolisc Ind he 6 0Le Les at eoo 
Lincoln, Neb..... 5-28-05 2.00 6 470 N Orleans, La.. 9. 9-98 1.65. 1. 730 
Beach ade t80-0082.00 7 4 ea74 AO Tyee oon 2 Cis 
ia Crosse, Wis...4 8-94-06 1.98 "5 “479 CTR ae chs we ere 8-12-01 1.64 4 784 
Yankton, sr D..s- 7514-00 “1.96 43, .482 Springfield, Mo.... 6- 4-04 1.64 10 744 
Memphis, Tenn....11-19-06 1.96 3 485 Lexington, Ky.... 7-19-02 1.68 1 745 
Nashville Tenn.... 6- 7-00 1.95 92 487 Des Moines, Ia... 7-19-05 1.62 5 ‘750 
Hannibal, Mo..... 6- 4-04 1.95 5 492 Memphis, Tenn... 8-18-01 1.62 3 758 
Lincoln, Neb. .... 7-15-00 1.95 6 498 St: Paul, Minn..,.... 8- 6-98 1.62) 2 “765 
Ex, V¥ Orth. /P ex... 6-24-09) 1.94. 3°! "501 Nashville, Tenn... 9-14-01 1.61 2 [57 
Salentine,, MNeb:.. (6-27-05 .1.94 2 2504 Okiahomia City 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 2-99 1.98 2 506 (Dj ee 5-28-03 1.60 4 761 
Yankton, S. D....-7-10-07 1.92 3 509 Columbia, Mo..... 10-28-00 1.60 5 766 
New Orleans, La. ...8= 38-02% 1.92” 1° 510 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-16-07 1.60 5 [71 
St. Paul, Minn....10- 3-03 1.92 2 512 Chicago. Ils... 64 5-24-02° 1.59 2 778 
New Orleans, La.. ‘4-17-00 -1.91 1 613 New Orleans, La.+:7-18-00 1.59. 4: 774 
Kansas City, Mo.. 6-22-01 1.90 7 520 Dodge City, Kans.. 7-28-00 1.58. 3 777 
New Orleans, La..11-22-01 1.90 1 521 Cattcranati,“Owsigak -T2E-08 SLAG iy 778 
Evansville, Ind.... 7-11-04 1.90 4 525 Hannibal, Mo.....-8- 8-99 1.56 5 783 
Hannibal, Mo..... 9-25-98 1.89 5 580 Columbia, Mo.....10-16-05 1.56 5 788 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-19-06 1.89 2 532 Louisville, Ky..... 8-16-98 1.55 2 790 
New Orleans, La.. 7-17-97 1.88 1 533 Omaha,» Neb, ...:..« 8-26-03 1.54 5 795 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 7-28-06 1.88 a 536 Lincoln, Neb...... 8- 4-02 1.54 6 801 
Yankton, S. D.... 5-24-06 1.88 3 539 Ft. Smith, Ark.... 9- 2-06 1.54 i 808 


Av. 


Par- 


Rate Final tial 


City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
Bismarck, -N, -D... 6-. 4-05 1.5817" 1° 809 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-24-03 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 5-29-00 1.58 2 811 Ft. Worth, Tex.... 9-21-00 
Bismarck, Ns Do>.° 6-16-97 -1.63™% (19812 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5-24-07 
Lotisville; (Ky?) 6-16-02) 49.62. |e si4 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-14-06 
Columbus,: UOs. 228 8-15-00 bo ees Des Moines, Ia.... 7-23-00 
St. Louis, Mo... .. 5- 5-00 1.51 4 819 Oklahoma City 
New Orleans, La..11- 9-98 1.51 1 820 Okla sire one 9-11-06 
Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 6-05 1.50 7 827% Yankton, S. D.... 9-20-02 
New Orleans, La..)-7- 5-02: 1:560-'01) 9 °828 a7 64 6) TD 8- 4-00 
St. Paul, Minn...10- 3-00 1.50 2 +. 830 ae nibs ‘alr eea: 8-10-99 
St. Louis, Mio.. ein 5-21-98 149 4 834 4 = oy Poser ae 
New Orleans, La.. 7-25-99 1.49 1 835 New Orleans, La..10- 7-00 
Topeka, Kans..... 7-81-02 1.48 7 842 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-16-06 
Columbia, Mo.... 6- 7-98 1.48 5 847 Milwaukee, Wis... 9-14-03 
Memphis, Tenn.... 3-26-02 1.48 3 850 Kansas City, Mo... 7-19-06 
Oklahoma City ; St: Paul; Minn i 78> 4205 

Okla paren. 7-20-97 1.46 4 854 Little Rock, Ark... 9-10-99 
Oklahoma City Milwaukee, Wis.. 6-12-99 

Oklaseaah Seen. 5- 6-00 1.46 4 . 858 Des Moines, Ia... 5-21-03 
Chicago.) Laem < 7= 0-031. 44. eee ee SOO Kansas City, Mo... 8-21-04 
Omaha; 7 Neb. 6-16-00 1.44 5 865 Little Rock, Ark...12-13-01 
Springfield, Ill.... 8- 3-05 1.44 6 871 ELuron aos : . 5- 9-05 
Springfield, Ill....0/6+ 1-02.° 1.44.9 60877 Oklahoma City 
Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 5-04 1.44 7 884 Old ack Sener eee 8-25-02 
Memphis, Tenn.... 5-26-02 1.44 3 887 Des Moines, Ia.... 4-17-00 
Dodge City, Kans..10- 9-98 1.42 3 890 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 

Table IV. 
HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. 
20 MINUTES. 
Av. Par- 


City. 
Kansas City, Mo.. 


New Orleans, La.. 9-30-05 
New Orleans, La.. 5-30-07 
Cincinnati, O...... 5-20-02 
St. Louis; Mo:... .- 7- 8-98 
St. Paul, Minn.... 8- 9-02 
Hannibal lo... 8-17-06 
New Orleans, La.. 8-25-04 
Milwaukee, Wis... 6-24-04 
Nashville, Tenn...11-20-00 
Columbus, Ove. 2 6-23-01 


Des Moines, Ia.... 7-19-04 


Wichita, Kans... . : 9-17-05 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 9-21-00 
Cohtmbtrss 20. <... 7-11-97 


Columbia, Mo..... 8 
Nashville, Tenn... 8 
Davenport, Ia.... 9 
Little Rock, Ark.. 7- 
New Orleans, La.. 7 

i, 


4. 

1 

1- 

8- 
Springfield, Mo.... 6-05 
Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-97 
Columbia, Mo.... 5-31-02 
Cairomellian eae ee 6-28-05 
Hannibal.) Mos. si. 9- 9-03 
jahFeyense sh JDL ceo. 7- 6-05 
Louisville, Ky..... 8- 8-98 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 6- 3-04 
Columbia, Mo..... 6-25-99 
New Orleans, La.. 3-17-04 
Nashville, Tenn... 7-19-04 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 3-25-04 
Shreveport, La.... 7-23-05 
Topeka, Kans..... 8- 2-03 
Columbia, Mo..... 8-25-00 
Wichita, Kans.... 7- 6-04 
Ft. Worth. Tex... 7- 2-05 
Lincoln, Neb..... 8-15-00 


Rate Final tial 


6.48 
6.07 
5.16 
5.03 
4.92 
4.92 
4.68 
4.65 
4.64 
4.60 
4.49 
4,41 
4.24 
4.24 
4.20 
4.14 
4.11 
4.06 
4.02 
4.00 
3.98 
3.95 
3.92 
3.92 
3.90 
3.84 
3.81 
3.81 
3.80 
3.78 
3.78 
Sekt 
3.75 
3.74 
3.74 
3.72 
3.72 
3.72 
3.70 
3.68 


eet 


me 


an 
AWOOIQPEWNOEFOWNNOAIWHENDOMPWHANONHWOOMNOHNONMH UN PHY eH AQ 


ik 


. per hr. Wt. Tis. 


tf 
8 


157 
163 


City. Date. 
Little Kock, Ark... 5-21-98 
Memphis, Tenn... 6- 7-05 
Springfield, Mo.... 8-14-05 
Oklahoma City 

Oklat ma cnctic ee 6- 4-04 
New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 7-25-97 
New Orleans, La.. 7-11-07 
Cairo Ulece eee 6-13-99 
Topeka, Kans:.... 9-13-01 
Davenport, Ia..... 7-10-07 
Des Moines, Ia.... 5-28-00 
Hiurona Sa Dee 6-14-01 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 9-99 
Topeka, Kans..... 6-24-03 
Kansas City, Mo... 6-22-06 
Cinemnatiny Ove t-2 2-06 
Denver, Colo....... 5-27-98 
New Orleans, La.. 8-22-03 
Kansas City, Mo... 9-14-05 
New Orleans, La.. 7-15-01 
St. Louis, Mo.... 8- 6-07 
Oklahoma City 

Ok aaa ares citer 5-29-05 
Nashville. Tenn.... 6-15-05 
Dodge City, Kans. 6- 7-99 
Davenport, Ia..... 7-10-07 
New Orleans, La.. 4-17-01 
Des Moines, Ia.... 7-14-07 
New Orleans, La.. 7-19-61 
Columbia, Mo..... 7- 2-05 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 9-30-02 
Dodge City, Kans.. 6- 4-98 
New Orleans, La.. 3-14-03 
Topeka, Kans..... 7-21-04 
Chicago; Tile. 7-15-06 
Lexington, Ky.... 8-22-00 
Louisville, Ky..... 5-31-03 
Nashville, Tenn.... 9- 1-00 
Dubuque, “14... . 20. 8-15-07 


(298 weighted rains every 5 years.) 


Av. 


Par- 


Rate Final tial 


1.42 
1.42 
1.42 
1.42 
1.40 


Av. 


6. 


Hoe WWHNNNMWWNWNNDAKHPANHNWFE TIDWw 


Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 


896 
899 
902 
908 
913 


917 
920 
922 
927 
928 
934 
936 
943 
945 
948 
950 
955 
962 
965 
967 


971 


976 
977 


Par- 


Rate Final tial 
per hr. Wt. Tis. 


3.66 
3.64 
3.64 


3.62 
3.60 
3.60 
3.58 


owe 


HAVO VQHWVNNHTHWHWR PHQHHHRQIAIWWOTNVQIWHNVHA 


166 
169 
179 


183 
184 
186 
187 
190 
197 
204 
209 
211 
213 
220 
227 
228 
229 
230 
237 
238 
242 


246 
248 
251 
258 
259 
264 
265 
270 
272 
275 
276 
283 
285 
286 
288 
290 
295 


City. 
Columbia, Mo..... 
Nashville, Tenn... 
ott Louis, . Mow .3 
St. Louis, Mo..... 
Little Rock, Ark... 


HiGmron ss «dae oe 


Shreveport, La... 


Dodge City, Kas.. 


Milwaukee, Wis... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Chicaso., Tee... 
Wichita, Kans..... 
Davenport, Ia..... 


Ste Louis, (Mo. oe 
Dodge City, Kans.. 
Lincoln, Neb...... 


Shreveport, La.... 
Des Moines, Ia.... 
St.. Louis, Mo.... 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 


New Orleans, La.. 
Cairorediies «Make ss 
Evansville, Ind.... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Nashville, Tenn... 
Lincoln, Neb..... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Yankton, S.-D:... 
Hannibal, Mo..... 
New Orleans, La.. 


Date. per hr. 


9-16-05 
6- 7-00 
5- 1-99 
5- 4-02 
5- 8-00 
6-12-00 
6- 106 
8- 6-98 
9- 2-00 
3-30-99 
8- 5-05 
7-14-04 


9-01 


2-07 
2-03 
7-07 
5-98 


0-02 
4-03 
8- 7-06 


6-22-03 


St. Paul, Minn:...10- 3-03 


DeGrOir es. Le ort: 
Ft. Worth, Tex.... 
Wichita, Kans.... 
Hannibal, Mo..... 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 


Oklahoma City 


ORAS 3. e Boe. 
Lexington, Ky..... 
Dodge City, Kans.. 
Nashville, Tenn... 
Evansville, Ind.... 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Memphis, Tenn.... 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 
Fino, 45. Ds 2. : 
New Orleans, La.. 
Wichita, Kans..... 
Memphis, Tenn.... 
Yankton; S. Diz: .; 
Little Rock, Ark... 
Starbaul) Minnke.- 
Lexington, Ky.... 
Bismarck, N. D... 
Yanrtone S.cDs. 3 


Oklahoma City 


Gra Mss. of Bs «3 
Kansas City, Mo... 
Kansas City, Mo... 
Chicago, Tiles... 
Evansville, Ind... 
Lincoln, Neb..... 
La Crosse, Wis... 
Nashville, Tenn... 
Pilon. oo, Lae, 
St. Louis, Mo..... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Chitago,- TiLiw 


6-27-05 
6- 5-07 


9-11-06 


NO OH 2 
i 

ooo 

Oo for) 


% 2 
ooooos 


Shar 
i) 
J 


' 


Dw 


POH ANA OOP OOo 


oo c'o'o 


8-25-03 


7- 1-01 


WW WW WV WV WWW WW WW OV go 9 09 09 0 G0 08 


Ooo 


Par- 
Rate Final tial 
WtwvPis: 


300 
302 
306 
310 
313 
315 
319 
322 
324 
325 
327 
337 
344 
348 
351 
357 
361 
366 
370 
372 
373 
374 
375 
381 
384 
390 
391 
392 
395 
399 
400 
402 
408. 
409 
412 
417 
418 
420 
422 
425 
435 
440 
443 


447 
448 
451 
453 
457 
460 
461 
464 
467 
469 
470 
480 
482 
485 
488 
490 
491 
492 
495 


499 
506 
513 
515 
519 
525 
530 
532 
534 
538 
539 
541 


City. 

Hannibal, Mo..... 
Bisniarck, No D... 
Evansville, Ind... 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 
Davenport, Ia..... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 
St. Paul, Minn.... 
Yankton, Si Ds. 2 
New Orleans, La.. 
Evansville, Ind... 
Denver,” Colo.e... 
Hannibal, Mo.... 


Little Rock, Ark..11-28-05 
Dodge City, Kans. 7-23-99 


Columbus, ~O.%. i 
Evansville, Ind... 
Hannibal, Mo.... 
Dodge City, Kans.. 
St. Paul, Minn... 
Omaha, Neb....... 
Valentine, Neb.... 
Shreveport, La.... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Columbia, Mo..... 
Chieavon Its. 4.4% 
Shreveport, La... 


Oklahoma City 


Okia se. S32080 33 
Dodge City, Kans.. 
Memphis, Tenn.... 
Columbia, Mo..... 
Columbia, Mo..... 
Topeka, Kans..... 
Springfield, Mo.... 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 
Kansas City, Mo... 
Columbus, Owls. 


Pittron, ou Disses 


New Orleans, La.. 
Kansas City, Mo... 
New Orleans, La.. 
Lincoln, Neb...... 
Nashville, Tenn... 
Shreveport, Laz... 
Ft. Worth, Tex..!: 
Little Rock, Ark... 
Kansas City, Mo.. 
THurnormeS.- Ds 82% 
Dodge City, Kans.. 
New Orleans, La.. 
Omaha, Nebs fac. . 
New Orleans, La.. 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 
New Orleans, La.. 
Topeka, -Katis.;... 2; 
Hannibal, Mo..... 
Valentine, Neb.... 
Lincoln, Neb...... 
Kansas City, Mo... 


Wichita, Kans.... 


Kansas City, Mo.. 
New Orleans, La.. 


Louisville, Ky..... 


New Orleans, La.. 
New Orleans, La.. 
Stapeaulee Minn... 
Shreveport, La.... 
Milwaukee, Wis... 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 
Davenport,, la. 3... 


Yankton. 5S. Dt...) 


Bismarck, N. D... 


Lexington, Ky..... 
Dodge City, Kans.. 
New Orleans, La.. 


O1 > Or HB CO OD 
' ' 


cs) 
FA HER 09 © 00 OO 0100 . 


PAD RAD 


Wee ew!) Hae 


rs 


= 
MEVWONDABAN 


Av. 


2.92 
2.92 
2.92 
2.92 
2.91 
2.91 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.90 
2.88 
2.88 
2.88 
2.88 
2.88 
2.86 


2.86 


2.86 
2.86 
2.85 
2.84 
2.84 
2.84 
2.83 
2.82 
2.82 


2.81 
2.80 
2.80 
2.80 
2.80 
2.79 
2.09 
2.78 
2.78 
Pritts 
2.07 
2.77 
2.76 
2.76 
2.75 
2.75 
2.75 
2.74 
2.74 
2.74 
2.74 
2.74 
2.74 


2.63 
2.62 
2.62 


Otc & p PWT RPWODWORPREWWOH RE wDmMWe SaRe 


he 


ed 
PORWR WNYRUOHH WHYS RAWNQHDOHE OH WWI WWORDOHQIEWE WA 


Par- 
Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 


546 
547 
551 
553 
560 
561 
564 
566 
569 
570 
574 
575 
580 
583 
586 
587 
591 
596 
599 
601 
606 
609 
613 
614 
619 
621 
625 


629 
632 
635 
641 
646 
653 
663 
665 
672 
673 
675 
676 
683 
684 
690 
692 
696 
699 
702 
709 
711 
714 
715 
720 
721 
723 
724 
731 
736 
739 
745 
752 
762 
769 
770 
772 
773 
774 
776 
780 
782 
784 
791 
794 
795 
796 
799 
800 


26 


Av. Par- Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial Rate Final tial 
City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 
Valentine, Neb..... 6-27-05 2.62 3 803 Yankton, S. D... 5-24-06 - 23.83" Segaoe 
LaCrosse, Was..../ 7-31-07 - 2:62 69/808 Omaha, (Nebis....: 7-15-00 2.32- 6 21i4 
Wichita, Kans..... 6- 2-04 2.62 10 818 Valentine, Neb.... 7- 9-07. 2.382 $8 1114 
St. Louis, Mo..... 5-21-98 2.62 4 822 Shreveport, La. 5- 7-07 2,382 4 1118 
Wichita, Kans..... 8-16-07 2.61 10 882 Springfield, Mo... 6-24-06 2.381 10 1128 
Kansas City, Mo... 8-15-03 2.61 7% 889 New Orleans, La.. 7-18-00 2.31 1.1129 
Oklahoma City Evansville, ‘Ind... 5-31-07 2.30 4 1133 
Ola. aes 5- 6-99 2.61 4 843 Columbia, Mo.... 7-18-02 2.30 5 1188 
Nashville, Tenn.... 7-11-97 2.61 2 845 Little Rock, Ark.. 9-10-99 2.30 3 1141 
Evansville, Ind.. ” 7-11-04 9/6011 490 849 New Orleans, La.. 7-17-97 2.29 1 1142 
St. Louis, Mo.. 5-81-03. 2160 4 7*868-. Lincoln, ~ Nev. 2.5 9-14-06 2.28 6 1148 
Memphis, Tenn.. 8-30=97% 2.608 34) 856 Yankton, S. D... 9-20-02 2.28 3.1151 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 2-99 2.60 2 858 Columbus, O..... 7-19-00 2.28 1 1152 
Wichita, Kans..... 6- 2-05 2.59 10 9868 Nashville, Tenn.. 6-27-04 2.28 2 1154 
Oklahoma City Omaha, Nebiecie. - 6-16-00 2.26 5 1159 
Oldant Sooetus 5-28-08 2.58 49 “gT2 Chicago,, I. =. 5-24-02 2.26 2 1161 
Ft. Smith, Ark.... 8-26-04 2.58 .7 879 Des Moines, Ia.. 7-23-00 2.25 . 6 1166 
Little Rock, Ark... 7-29-00 2.58 3 882 Dodge City, Kans.10- 9-98 2.24 3 1169 
Davenport, Ia..... 9-14-03 2.58 7 889 Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.24 6 1174 
St. Paul, Minn.... 8- 5-98 2.58 2 891 Lincoln, Neb..... 8- 7-07 2.24 6 1180 
Des Moines, Ia.... 4-22-97 2.57 5 896 Indianapolis, Ind.. 5-29-00 2.23 2 1182 
Kansas City, Mo... 7- 7-02 2.57 7% 908 New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-98 2.23 1 1183 
Kansas City, Mo.. 8-24-04 2.56 q 910 SEL alls Minn... 6-12-99 2.22 2 1185 
Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 4-99 2.56 5 915 Oklahoma City 
Springfield, Ill..... 5- 5-01 2.56 6 921 Okla. ......... 8-25-02 2.22 4 1189 
Columbia, Mo..... 5-25-03 2.56 5 926 Des Moines, Ia... 4-17-00 2.21 5 1194 
Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 5-98 2.56 7 933 New Orleans, La.. 9- 9-98 2.18 1 1195 
Caize Salles 6- 7-00 2.56 8 9386 Dubuque, Ia...... 9-25-04 2.18 5 1200 
Ft. Worth, Tex.... 5- 3-04 2.54 3 939 St. Paul, Minn... 8- 4-05 2.18 2 1202 
Lexington, Ky..... PET9202'4 2164 .. 1) 7940 Des Moines, la... 7-16-07 2.18 5 1207 
Shreveport, La.... 4- 2-05 2.54 4 944 New Orleans, La.. 7-25-99 2.17 1 1208 
Bismarck, N. D.... 6- 4-05 2.54 1 945 Des Moines, Ia... 7-18-04 2.17 5 1213 
Columbia, Mo.....10-16-05 2.58 5 950 Columbia, Mo.... 4-24-04 2.16 5 1218 
Columbia, Mo...... 4-25-02 2.52 5 955 LaCrosse, Wis... 8- 4-05 2.14 5 1228 
Lincoln, Neb...... 7-22-02 2.52 6 961 ‘Topeka, Kans..... 7-31-02 2.12 7 1230 
Evansville, Ind.... 7-10-05 2.52 4 965 Cincinnati, O..... 7-21-03 2.12 1 1231 
New Orleans, La.. 3-19-05 2.50 1 966 Chicago, Ill...... 7- 9-03 2.12 2 1233 
Memphis, Tenn....11-19-06 2.50 38 969 Louisville, Ky.... 6-15-02 2.12 2 1235 
Cincinnati, O...... 5-29-99 2.50 1 970 Yankton, S. D... 9-20-02 2.08 3 1238 
Memphis, Tenn.... 8-18-01 2.48 3 973 St. Paul, Minn...10- 3-00 2.08 2 1240 
New Orleans, La.. 7- 7-98 2.48 1 974 Huron, S: D,... «8-18-04. 207-53 alaee 
Evansville, Ind.... 6- 2-04 2.48 4 978 Oklahoma City 
Columbus, O...... 7-20-97 2.48 1 979 Okla. ......-.-- 5- 6-00 2.05 4 1246 
Kansas City, Mo... 9- 9-03 2.48 7 986 arrose Lisiige oon ee 7-30-01 2.04 3 1249 
New Orleans, La..11-22-01 2.48 1 987 Dodge City, Kans. 7-28-00 2.02 .8 1252 
Oklahoma City Oklahoma City 
Oklari sen : 8-11-02 2.46 4 991 Okla ete. 8-12-01 2.00 4 1256 
Cincinnati, ase 8- 3-00- 2.46 1 992 Springfield, Ill.... 8- 3-05 2.00 6 1262 
Milwaukee, Wis... 7-21-07 2.46 2 994 Springfield, Mo... 8- 7-06 2.00 10 1272 
Little Rock, Ark.. 8-25-99 2.46 3 997 Columbia, Mo.... 6- 7-98 1.98 5 1277 
Little Rock, Ark.. 6-22-04 2.46 3 1000 Indianapolis, Ind.. 6- 4-06 1.97 2 1279 
Springfield, Mo.... 6- 4-04 2.45 10 1010 Ft. Worth, Tex.. 9-21-00. 1:96 38 1282 
New Orleans, La.. 5-23-07 2.45 1 1011 St. “Paul, “Minn. . 27-25-97 1.94 492 1284 
Columbia, Mo..... 10-28-00 2.44 5 1016 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-03 1.94 3 1287 
ancoin; sNebme ua 8- 4-02 2.44 6 1022 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 4-06 1.98 7 1294 
Se Ope Ka eS ats fe. terae 9-22-02 2.42 7 1029 Omaha, Neb...... 8-26-08 1.92 5 1299 
Oklahoma City Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 5-04 1.92 7 1806 
Oicla Rea ese Seaton 23-03 2.42 4 1033 New Orleans, La..11- 9-98 1.90 1° 180% 
Oklahoma City Oklahoma City 
Oklagiiec eeitecstas 8- 7-06 2.42 4 10387 Okla: Big cee nies 5-21-03 1.90 4-13 Lt 
Ft. Worth, Sex...10-21-00 2.42 38 1040 Milwaukee, Wis... 6-12-99 1.90 2 1813 
St. Paul, Minn.... 8-18-07 2.42 2 1042 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5-24-07 - 1.86° S87 °i3me 
Evansville, Ind.... 5-30-00 2.42 4 1046 Hiuronyeia eae 8- 4-00 1.85 2 1318 
Caiz0 ds snseaiars Se 6-22-97 2.42 3 1049 Des Moines, Ia... 5-21-03 1.84 5B 13238 
Little Rock, Ark.. 4-24-05 2.40 3 1052 Ft. Smith, Ark... 9- 2-06 1.82 7 1330 
Springfield, Ill.... 6- 1-02 2.40 5 1057 Nashville, Tenn... 9-14-01 1.80 2 18382 
St. Louis, Mo.... 7-29-03 2.40 4 1061 Dodge City, Kans. 8- 6-03 1.80 3 1335 
St: Louis, Mo.... 5- 6-00 2.89 4 1065 Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 7-98 1.76 5 13840 
Wichita, Kans.....10-30-03 2.38 10 1075 |New Orleans, La..10- 7-00 1.76 1 13841 
Columbia, Mo....10- 6-00 2.87 5 1080 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-10-05 1.76 6 13847 
Valentine, Neb... 7-11-06 2.86 3 1083 Dodge City, Kans. 5-13-98 1.72 3 1850 
Ft. Worth, Tex.. 8-11-06. 2.36 3 :1086 Columbus, O..... 8-15-00 1.72 1 13851 
New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-02 2.84 1 108%  MHannibal, Mo..... 8-10-99 164 65 1356 
Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 6-05 2.34 7 1094 New Orleans, La.. 7- 5-02 1.63 1 1357 
St! Paul; Minn...) 7-80-04, 22:32 <2" 1096 Louisville, Ky.... 3-16-98 1.60 2 1859 
Kansas City, Mo.. 7-19-06 2.82 7 1103 lekotgeyelqmrsts) 1D) s5 ae 5- 9-05 1.68 2 1861 


City. Date. per hr. Wt. Ts. City. 
Bincolm, Neb. .... 5-24-03 1.55 6 1367 Little Rock, Ark..12-31-01 1.44 
Oklahoma City New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 1.26 
OC ae Fades sw ice 7-20-97 1.44 4. 1371 Lincoin, Neb..... 9-16-06 1.10 
Table V. 
HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. 
10 MINUTES. 
Avy. Par- Av. 
Rate Final tial 
City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
PgEON a, Ose. soe 6-14-01 7.34 2 2 New Orleans, La.. 8-25-03 4.38 
New Orleans, La.. 9-30-05 7.06 1 3 St. Louis, Mo.... 5- 1-99 4.38 
Kansas City, Mo.. 8-23-06 6.78 7 10 Springfield, Mo... 7-26-05 4.38 
New Orleans, La.. 5-30-07 6.50 1 lah Nashville, Tenn... 7-19-04 4.37 
Des Moines, Ia... 7-19-04 6.12 5 16 Yankton, S22) 7. .07-15-00 4:36 
St. lowis,-- Mo... .c 7 8-98" (6.03 4 20 Yankton, S.D..2.. 8-18-99 4:35 
Springfield, Mo... 5-31-06 6.01 10 30 Wichita, Kans.... 7- 6-04 4.35 
New Orleans, La.. 8-25-04 5.93 1 31 Louisville, Ky.... 8- 8-98 4.35 
Indianapolis, Ind. 9-30-02 5.84 2 33 New Orleans, La.. 7- 6-04 4.31 
Milwaukee, Wis... 6-24-04 65.78 2 35 Lincoln, Neb..... 7-31-03 4.31 
Hannibal, Mo..... 8-17-06 5.64 5 40 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-05 4.30 
Columbia, Mo..... 7- 2-05 5.62 5 45 Kansas City, Mo.. 6-22-06 4.80 
Cimcinnati,—O.. S<2 5-20-02 5.61 1 46 Lincoln, Neb..... 7-15-00 4.28 
Wichita, Kans. 9-17-05 5.50 10 56 New Orleans, La.. 3-80-99 4.27 
Omaha, Clb acta os 7- 6-98 5.46 5 61 St. Louis, Mo.... 5- 4-02 4.26 
Columpus: Ors eae 6-23-01 6.39 1 62 iincoln.= Neb. ...:: 8-17-97 4.26 
Louisville, Ky..:.. 5-31-03 5:36 2 64 Topeka, Kans..... 9-13-01 4.24 
Sieeaulor Minn. .0.5= 9-02. 6:30 > 12 66 Hannibal, Mo.... 8-13-04 4.24 
Memphis, Tenn.... 3- 9-01 5.28 38 69 Ft. Worth, Tex... 7-28-06 4.22 
Hannibal, Mo..... 5-26-06 5.23 5 74 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 4-98 4.22 
Nashville, Tenn...11-20-00 5.22 . 2 76 Oklahoma City 
Milwaukee, Wis... 9-17-07 5.20 2 78 ORM oe ton tacts 6- 4-04 4.18 
Denver; Colo... . 7: 5-27-98 5.02 1 79 New Orleans, La.. 6-22-03 4.18 
Columbia, Mo.... 6-25-99 5.02 5 84 Little Rock, Ark.. 5- 8-00 4.16 
Hannibal, sMo..2. 9- 4-98 4.97 5 89 Ft. Worth. Tex... 6-20-06 4.16 
Indianapolis, Ind. 8- 9-99 4.96 2 91 Little Rock, Ark.. 5-12-05 4.14 
St. Louis, Mo.... 6-13-00 4.94 4 95 Lexington, Ky.... 7-28-04 4.14 
Fes orth, * ex... 9-21-00 4.90 4 98 Ft. Worth, Tex... 6- 5-07 4.14 
Davenport, Ia..... 8-26-07 4.89 7 105 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 4.14 
Lincoln, Neb..... 8-15-00 4.82 6 111 Indianapolis, Ind.. 7-25-97 4.13 
icone 9, - Dis... 7- 6-05 4.80 2 kes Topeka, Kans.... 7-21-04 4.13 
New Orleans, La.. 7-15-01 4.80 ° 1 114 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-19-01 4.12 
Chicagos Ils. ...: .. 8= 5-00, 4:76 ~2 116 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-01 4.08 
Garros Ulver ss 6-28-05 4.74 3 119 Valentine, Neb.... 8- 2-04 4.08 
Davenport, sla... < 6--9-05 4.72 7% 126 Gatto, MALE oe50 6-13-99 4.06 
Ht. Worth, Tex.4.5.3-25-04 .4.72 3 129 Cmcinnatin-O 8. > <1 7-22-06 4.05 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 7- 2-05 4.70 3 132 Evansville, Ind... 7-11-04 4.04 
Des Moines, Ia... 7-19-05 4.67 5° 187 Evansville. Ind. 5- 8-00 4.02 
Columbia, Mo... 8-22-05 =4.64 -5 ©1492 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 2-03 4.02 
New Orleans, La.. 3-17-04 4.62 1 143 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 3.99 
Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-97 4.61 2 145 Shreveport, La... 6- 1-06 3.98 
Des Moines, Ia... 5-28-00 4.60 5 150 Bismarck, N. D... 6-13-01 3.98 
GolumbusieQ@.. 2a 7-11-97 4.57 1 151 New Orleans, La.. 7-10-07 3.97 
New Orleans, La.. 7-18-01 4.57 1 152 Davenport, Ia..... 9-25-04 3.96 
Evansville, Ind... 8- 5-03 4.56 4 156 Topeka, Kans.... 6-24-03 3.96 
Chicas wi Ll yes cen. 7-1 5-06 m4-5o- ee, sre Ol Ft. Worth, Tex.. 5- 2-06 3.94 
Ft. Worth, Tex...-6-. 3-04. 4.52 os 159 MT LO SS aek ) cuce ns 8- 8-04 3.93 
Nashville... Penn... .8-21-02 :4.52. 2 171 New Orleans, La.. 8- 5-07 3.92 
Hannibal, Mo..... 9- 9-03 4.51 5 166 St. Paul, Minn... 8- 5-98 3.92 
Dodge City, Kans. 8- 6-98 4.50 3 169 Des Moines, Ia... 7-14-07 3.92 
New, Oricangs la,» 4017-01 «4650, ele 172 Oklahoma City 
dua Crosses Wiss... 4/-- 9-03 4250> 9 5: \ 177 Ciclate oO kac ote. 5- 6-00 3.92 
Columbia, Mo..... 5-31-02 4.49 5 182 Nashville, Tenn 6- 7-00 3.91 
Nashville, Tenn... 7-10-97 4.48 2 184 Columbia, Mo..... 6-14-98 3.90 
Columbia, Mo. - 8-25-00 4.46 5 189 Topeka, Kans..... 9-22-02 3.90 
Nashville, Tenn... 6-28-00 4.45 2 191 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 7-99 3.90 
St. Louis, Mo..... 8- 6-07 4.44 4 ° 195 Columbus, O..... 6-14-04 3.89 
@olumbia.qMo. =... 9-16-05 4.42 5 200 Little Rock, Ark.. 9-15-98 3.88 
Little Rock, Ark.. 7-11-03 4.42 3 203 Dodge City, Kans. 8-18-04 3.88 
Dodge City, Kans. 6-17-06 4.42 3 206 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 7-99 3.88 
New Orleans, La. .12-22-07 4.41 1 207 Wichita, Kans..... 8- 1-03 38.88 
Davenport, Ja.... 7-10-07 4.40 7 214 New Orleans, La.. 3-14-03 3.88 
Little Rock, Ark.. 5-21-98 4.38 3 217 Gincimration O enian « 5-29-99 3.87 


Av. 
Rate Final tial 


Par- 


27 


Av. 


Par- 


Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Ts. 


3 


1374 


1 13875 
6 1381 


Par- 


Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 


bel 
COWWWORH 


a 


mt 
RPHOWWWH WIND AVWHWWRIQH HH HYP PH WWHURWHWHWWOW ee WWHWARPREARVWOAH DW 


218 
222 
232 
234 
237 
240 
250 
252 
253 
259 
261 
268 
274 
275 
279 
285 
292 
297 
300 
303 


307 
308 
Bilal 
314 
317 
318 
321 
322 
324 
331 
333 
334 
337 
340 
341 
345 
349 
356 
357 
3858 
359 
360 
367 
374 
377 
379 
380 
382 
387 


391 
393 
398 
405 
408 
409 
412 
415 
418 
428 
429 
430 


City. 


Shreveport, La... 
Memphis, Tenn... 
GIT. Ls aeetnete 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 
New Orleans, La. 
St... Louis, Mo... 
Springfield, Ill... 
Pron aOum ee 
Ghieago Til cee 
Oklahoma City 


Okla. 
St. - Paul, 


Stacaul Minnie: 
New Orleans, La. 
Dodge City, Kans. 
Stasloms eiio..: 
Lexington, Ky... 
New Orleans, La. 
Kansai: 
Kansas City, Mo. 
Davenport; 1a... 7. 
Oklahoma City 


Wichita, 


Okla. 


Columbia, 
Ft. 


Valentine, 


Lincoln, 


City. 


Springfield, Mo... 

St. Paul, Minn... 

New Orleans, La.. 

Chicago, Illic.... 
D 


Huron, 


Ft. 
Springfield. 


Lexington, 


Memphis, Tenn... 
Wankton, o72 ).: 
Evansville, Ind.. 
Shreveport, La... 
New Orleans, La.. § 
Bismarck;; N.1 Da, 


Huron, S. 
Louisville, 


Shreveport, 
Cincinnati, 


Davenport, Ia.... 
Lexington, Ky... 
Columbia, Mo.... 
New Orleans, La. . 
IMO fase 
Worth, .Tex.. 
Kansas City. Mo.. 
Hannibal, Mo.... 
Wachita. Kans. dar 
Kansas City, Mo.. 
WerWaerb Sp bh. 2 
New Orleans, La.. 
Wichita, Kans?s 3. 
New Orleans, La.. 
New Orleans. La.. 
INIED ape 
St."Panl- Milinn 7/2: 
Vankton, SheD-i=. 
Topeka, Kans..... 
Nebo. 3 


vil 


oe ee 


Fe. Warth, cbex..; 
Milwaukee, Wis... 
Smith, Ark... 
WMOms. 
Memphis, Tenn... 
St. Lois. Alo. 3. 
Kansas City, Mo.. 
New Orleans. La.. 
RY ates 


Dae 
Ws ke 
Des Moines, Ia.. 


Cie me ae} 


Dodge City. Kan 
lekehnoroy, “Sy IW Aye 


Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 


7-23-05 3.86 4 434 
6- 7-05 3.86 3 4387 
8- 7-06 3.86 3 440 
8-12-00 3.85 2 442 
6-20-00 3.84 1 443 
7-24-00 3.84 4 447 
8- 7-07 3.83 6 453 
7-20-07 3.88 2 455 
7-28-06 3.82 2 457 
5- 6-99 3.81 461 
. 6-28-01 3.80 463 
9- 5-04 3.80 465 
4-17-00 3.80 466 
7-23-99 3.78 469 
7- 4-99 3.78 473 
8-23-05 3.78 474 
Hol be eae 475 
6--2-04 Ga 485 
9- 5-98 6 492 
9- 1-05 3) 499 


bear See 


1 
oS 
rs 


DAIADADAABADAAARIRAAWAONIWWNS J 3 


Oo 

co 
WWWHWWWWWwWWWwWwwwwwwwww wwo0 
MWUNVNWUVWRPARARMWVWDOOWWHEA 


ANIWNWWHHOHWHIOTNRWOAIH OH QP WIOHRH PR WH WWE 
On 
fal 
~ 


EB OMAIWIDNDRAWWOWOWDAIWINO 
WWNWHWWH HH HHW HWHHNWH WD 
CO D> HE He Ft OD 2D OTH 00 HH OT Ft et et DW HR CO 
oS 
On 


Ne) 
ae 
i) 
er) 
i) 


(745 weighted rains every 2 


Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial 
Date. perhr. Wt. Ts. 


8-14-05 3.42 10 755 
9-25-06 3.42 2 . 757 
8-24-03 3.42 1 758 
5-11-05 3.42 2 760 
6-27-05 3.41 ne Se (hare 
5- 3-04 3.40 3 765 
8-23-98 | 3.389" 2° 767 
6-30-07 3.39 7 774 
7-19-06 3.38 10 784 
8- 9-05 3.38 3 787 
5-31-03 3.87 4 791 
3-24-04 3.36 7. 798 
8-22-03 3.35 1 799 
5-10-05 3.35 1 800 
11-19-06 3.34 3 803 
. 8-23-06 3.34 _3 806 
. 7-20-04 3.384 4 810 
sw-2L-Od. 8 ean 45° ole 
9-16-01 3.33 1 815 
10- 1-98 3.83 1' 816 
6-24-02 3.33 2 818 
7-10-97 3.32 2 . 820 
4-22-97 3.32 5 | 825 
5- 7-07 3.381 4 829 
8- 3-00. 3.30 1 830 
7-19-97 3.30 3. 8383 
6-12-00 3.830 2 8385 


City. 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 7- 6-04 
Oklahoma City 

Ckigehc asetn  ok 5-29-05 
Denver, Colo..... 
Ft. Smith, Ark... 8 
Des Moines, Ia... 7-1 
Dodge City, Kans.: 7-21-07 
Shreveport, La... .16 
La Crosse, Wis... 7-21-07 
Little Rock, Ark. .11-28-05 


Columbia, Mo..... 9-18-04 
Evansville, Ind... 9- 2-00 
New Orleans, La.. 6-27-04 
Milwaukee, Wis... 9- 2-00 
New Orleans, La.. 3-14-03 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-31-04 
Shreveport, La.... 4- 2-05 
St. Paul, Minn... 8- 4-05 
Omaha Neb... oct 7-18-07 
Wichita, Kans.... 6- 2-05 
Wichita, Kans.... 8-16-07 
Wichita, Kans.... 5-20-03 
Kansas City, Mo.. 8-21-04 
Oklahoma City 

Okla’ c.cteenre aah. 5- 5-99 
Bismarck, N. D.. 6- 4-05 
Dubuque, glasa.. a. 8-15-07 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-19-06 
Kansas City, Mo.. 5-24-05 
CincinnatizO. vo. 7- 5-97 
Columbus, O....... 7-28-02 
Oklahoma City 

Oblate ace 9-11-06 
Nashville, Tenn... 9- 4-06 
Hannibal, sev: o 7- 7-98 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 2-99 
Nashville, Tenn... 9- 1-00 
Evansville, Ind... 6- 2-04 
Buront Osean 8- 8-01 
Dodge City. Kans. 8-16-07 
Yankton, S. D... 7-14-00 
Liricoln, “Neb: 3 =< 8- 4-02 
Omaha, Neba.. oa. 6-26-06 

years. ) 

City. Date 
@:k 1a hieamia City 

Okla wie see 8- 7-06 
Shreveport, La.... 5- 8-06 
Chicago. Liles ee 7- 1-01 
Shreveport, La.... 7-23-02 
Valentine, Neb... 7-11-06 
Kansas City, Mo.. 5-23-02 
Nashville. Tenn... 7-11-97 
Topeka, Kans..... 7-28-01 
Little Rock, Ark.. 8-25-99 
Evansville, Ind... 8-14-06 
Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-00 
St. Paul, Minn.:.10- 3-03 
New Orleans, La.. 6- 4-05 
St. Louis, Mo.... 5- 5-00 
Yanktons Si) yee 0207 
Kansas City, Mo.. 7-19-06 
Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 6-05 
Nashville, Tenn... 6-27-04 
Little Rock, Ark.. 4-24-05 
Springfield, Mo... 6- 4-04 
Columbia, Mo.....10-28-00 
Columbus, O:-.- 7-19-00 


St lsOis eh Ost. sae 
Valentine, Neb... 7- 
6 


2 

1 
Lexington, Ky.... 7-19-02 

2 
Little Rock, Ark.. 6-2 


Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial 


Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 


3.60" 2 eee Doe 
3.60 4 595 
3.00 ee 596 
3.58, V7 9200s 
3.57. =D S3G08 
3.06 3 611 
3.56 4 615 
3.56 5 4620 
3.56 38 623 
8.54 5 628 
8.54 4 632 
8.54 au 633 
8.54. 2 635 
3.54 1 636 
3.53 2 638 
3.53 4 642 
3.52 2 644 
3.52 5 649 
3.52 10 659 
3.50 10 669 
3.50 10 679 
3.50 7 686 
3.50 4 690 
3.00) ae 691 
3.50 5 696 
3.49 2 698 
3.48 Reo 
3.46 1 706 
3.46 1 707 
38.46 4 y Gilat 
3745 92 713 
3.44 5 718 
3.445 “Based 
3.44 2 722 
3.44 4 726 
3.44 2 728 
3.44 3 731 
3.43 Sas 
3.42... 6. 720 
3.42 5 745 
Av. Par- 


Rate Final tial 


.per hr.. Wt. Ts. 


839 
843 
845 
852 
848 
859 
861 
868 
871 
875 
878 
880 
881 
885 
888 
895 
902 
904 
907 
917 
922 
923 
924 
928 
931 
934 


an 
WW RHE ONIOWNONRAIWRPHUWWHRWAQHOAIW ROR 


29 9 09 29 49 29 99 99 99 09 99 99 99 09 99 99 49 49 09 2949 49 G9 99 29 O9 
Set HW WVINVWMWNVWVWNVWNNONVWNNWWWWW 


PRIA AWDDODNDDOOCOOCHVNNWNVKEKFUIAAAWWDWOD 


29 


Av. Par- 
Rate Final tial 
City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
Nashville, Tenn... 6- 9-08 38.13 2 9386 #New Orleans, La..10- 7-00 
New Orleans, La.. 6- 7-04 8.12 1 987 New Orleans, La.. 5-23-07 
Memphis, Tenn... 7-16-06 3.12 3 940 Columbia, Mo..... 10- 6-00 
Oklahoma City St. Louis, Mo.... 7-29-03 
Re lew era co 6 osee 5-28-03 3.12 4 944 St. Paul, Minn... 7-80-04 
Columbia, Mo..... 5-25-03 3.12 5 949 Milwaukee, Wis... 7-21-07 
Kansas City, Mo... 6-22-01 3.12 7 956 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5-24-07 
Des Moines, Ia... 4-17-00 3.12 5 961 Yankton, S. D... 9-20-02 
Columpus:, Ones ac 7-20-97 8.10 1 962 #$=/MHannibal, Mo..... 6- 4-04 
Oklahoma City Milwaukee, Wis... 9-14-03 
Rates we te oe 8-25-02 3.10 4 966 ##Dodge City, Kans. 7-28-00 
Springfield, Mo... 6-24-06 3.10 10 976 New Orleans, La.. 7- 4-03 
Lamcoiny = INGDs. on. 8- 4-07 8.10 6 982 Dubuque, Ta...... 9-25-04 
Columbia. Mo.....- 4-25-02 8.09 5 987 Davenport, Ia..... 9- 9-03 
LE Witnorals Oop Bee ae 6-17-04 38.08 2 ° 989 La Crosse, Wis... 8- 4-05 
New Orleans, La..11-22-01 3.08 1 990 St. Paul, Minn... 8-18-07 
Dodge City, Kans.10- 9-98 3.08 3 993 St. Paul, Minn... 7-25-97 
New Orleans, La.. 7-11-06 3.07 1 994 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-03 
Valentine, Neb... 7- 6-07 3.06 3 997 Valentine, Neb.... 6-27-05 
Wichita, Kans.....10-30-08 3.04 10 1007 Oklahoma City 
New Orleans, La..11- 9-98 3.02 1 1008 Ole aee eae 5-21-03 
Columbia, Mo..... 4-24-04 3.02 5 1013 Dodge City, Kans. 8- 6-03 
New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-02 3.01 1 1014 Memphis, Tenn... 5-26-02 
Lincoln, Neb..... 5-28-05 3.00 6 1020 ‘Omaha, Neb...... 8-26-03 
Kansas City, Mo.. 8-15-03 3.00 7 1027 Huron, S. D..... 8-18-04 
Oklahoma City New Orleans, La.. 3-19-05 
CU Age wat an ec es 5-23-03 3.00 4 1081 Nashville, Tenn... 9-14-01 
Springfield, Ill... 5- 5-01 3.00 6 1037 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-14-06 
Denver, Colo..... 6- 2-00 3.00 ib aleexe: Tincoln: (Nebo. 2. 8- 7-07 
Evansville, Ind... 9- 2-04 3.00 4 1042 Omaha, Neb...... 6-16-00 
Ft. Worth, Tex... 6-24-03 3.00 3 1045 Springfield, Mo... 8- 7-06 
Memphis, Tenn... 6-23-99 2.99. 3 1048 Cairo, Ill......... 7-30-01 
Evansville, Ind... 7-10-05 2.98 4 1052 Cairo, Ill......... 6-22-97 
Yankton, S. D.... 9-20-02 2.98 3 1055 Evansville, Ind. 5-31-07 
Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 4-99 2.98 5 1060 Des Moines, Ia... 5-21-03 
Des Moines, Ia... 7-18-04 2.97 5 1065 Milwaukee, Wis... 6-12-99 
Topeka, Kans..... 7-31-02 2.87 7 1072 St. Paul, Minn... 6-12-99 
oe pager Osa . 9-21-00 2.96 38 1075 Indianapolis, Ind.. 6- 4-06 
ansas City, Mo.. 7-14-07 2.96 7 1082 - 
New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-98 2.95 1 1083 Se ee 8-11-02 
Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.93 5 1088 Topeka Kans 8- 4-06 
Omaha, Neb...... 7-15-00 2.92 5 1098 py betas QAaieess: 3 P50 
Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 9-08 2.92 7 1100 Goinchay Ti’) 3. 3.05 
Memphis, Tenn... 8-30-97 2.92 3 1103 Ci abi Mo Fae 7-18-02 
en io 7 te 6- 7-00 2.92 38 1106 Hoace City. Kan. 5413.98 
Bismarck, N. D.. 6-16-97 2.92 1.1107 Fie pooh’ Ack... 9.10.99 
New Orleans, La.. 7-25-99 2.92 1 1108 sp Panta if 
Memphis, Tenn... 3-26-02 
New Orleans, La.. 7- 7-98 2.90 1 1109 WewOrleancals 9- 9-98 
New Orleans, La.. 8- 5-98 2.90 1 1110 py TP GAHS tA-- Fe Oe 
Indianapolis, Ind.. 5-29-00 2.90 2 1112 Fe Worth Tex.” 3-11.06 
Louisville, Ky..... 3-16-98 2.90 2 1114 ee Achar) kod ead 
Chicago, Ill.:..... 7- 9-03 2.90 2 1116 Oklahoma City 
Evansville, Ind... 5-30-00 2.90 4 1120 Okla. Sool sieee at sia 8-12-01 
St, Paul, Minn...10- 3-00 2.90 2 1122 Ft. Smith, Ark... 9- 2-06 
Memphis, Tenn... 8-18-01 2.88 3 1125 Columbus, O..... 8-15-00 
Chiraco. Tl. o5 525 5-24-02 2.87 2 1127 New Orleans, La.. 7- 5-02 
New Orleans, La.. 7-18-00 2.86 1 1128 Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 5-04 
Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.86 1 1129 Oklahoma City 
Cincinnati, 25 3. 7-21-03 2.85 1 1180 Octal Ss ccs evans 38 7-20-97 
Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 2-05 2.84 7 1187 Little Rock, Ark. .12-13-01 
Louisville, Ky.... 6-15-02 2.883 2 1139 Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 7-02 
Ht- Worth: = lex. 2210-21-00. 52.890 =3 1142 Des Moines, Ia... 7-23-00 
Springfield, Ill... 6- 1-02 2.82 6 1148 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 
New Orleans, La.. 7-17-97 2.81 1 1149 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-24-03 
Lincoln, Neb...... 7-22-02 2.80 6 1155 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-16-06 
Lincoln, Neb...... 5-10-05 2.80 6 1161 Hannibal, Mo..... 8-10-99 
Little Rock, Ark.. 6- 1-98 2.80 3 1164 Columbia, Mo..... 6- 7-98 
Table VI. 
Years Yearsof Dist. Final Years 
Cities. considered. record. wght. wght. Cities. 
Kansas City, Mo.. 10 10 7 7 Hannibal, Mo..... 10 
‘opeka,, Katisi.... 10 8% 6 7 Columbia, Mo..... 10 
Wichita, Kans.... 10 f 5 10 Springfield, Mo... 10 
Lincoln, Neb...... 10 gis 5 6 Oklahoma City 
Omaha, Neb...... 10 11 5 5 Okla: .. ce. sege- 10 
Des Moines, Ia... 10 11 5 6 Davenport, Ia..... 10 


Av. 


Par- 


Rate Final tial 
Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 


2.80 
2.80 
2.78 
2.78 
2.78 
2.76 
2.74 
2.73 
2.73 
2.72 
2.72 


WNW NNN VYVNYVNVNVVVWNWNY 
DUST OL CLOT OUD D DADA DADDY DAD 
EP POIDDDOOCOR KF WWWRH ODO 


Pet et et PE Pe EL RL 2D 2] 
DAIAIAWWDOOOHHY 
AWDHSOROD 


9% 
10 

5 
10% 

6 


WWW OP WWOAIMDHDVWHWONW OP WWWHWNWONAHWNWOAIWWWONDF OHH 


WWE WWWODW=2 » 


AIA AHAVW Nee QI Pp 


Years of Dist. 
considered. record. wght. 


mr ON 


1165 
1166 
1171 
1175 
1177 
1179 
1182 
1185 
1190 
1192 
1195 
1196 
1201 
1208 
1213 
1215 
1217 
1220 
1223 


1227 
1238 
1230 
1235 
1240 
1241 
1243 
1249 
1255 
1260 
1270 
1273 
1276 
1280 
1285 
1287 
1289 
1291 


1295 
1302 
1304 
1310 
1315 
1318 
1321 
1324 
1325 
1327 
1330 


1334 
1341 
1342 
1343 
1350 


1354 
1357 
1364 
1369 
1370 
1376 
1382 
1387 
1392 


Final 
weht. 


5) 
5 
10 
4 
7 


30 


Years Yearsof Dist. Final Years Yearsof Dist. Final 

Cities. considered. record. wght. wght. Cities. considered. record. wght. wght. 
Springfield, Ill.... 10 64% 4 6 Chicago}: TH. sca 10 11 2 a 
St; #Lonis; WMo®. aa 0 11 4 4 Indianapolis, Ind.. 10 ala 2 2 
ter Smith peArks S10 6 4 % Louisville, Ky.... 10 11 2 2 
Dodge City, Kans. 10 11 3 3 Nashville, Tenn... 10 pun 2 2 
Wankton, S, D.2; 10 10% 8 3 Shreveport, La.... 10 514 2 4 
La Crosse, Wis... 10 6 3 5 Pueblo, Colo... .... 10 8 1 1 
Dubuque, Ja...... 10 5% 38 5 Denver, Colo..... 10 Dy 1 1 
Evansville, Ind... 10 8 3 4 Bismarck, gNie Ds. oO 11 1 af 
Cairo, alll o5 sie 10 104% 8 3 Columbus, O...... 10 Tete 1 
Memphis, Tenn... 10 11 3 3 Gincinnati, +O x sss 10 as | 1 1 
Little Rock, Ark.. 10 vail 3 3 exineton, IS yse.. o.20 9 nf 1 
Ft. worth, Tex... 10 VY 2 3 New Orleans, La.. 10 tit 1 at 
Valentine, Neb.... 10 6 2 3 _— 
Maron; Saba. 3 10 10 2 2 Total final weight. ....sd:avsene .-149 
St.» Paul; sMinn...9 10 11 2 2 Twice the: final -weight. ... .<ci « spelsts 298 
Milwaukee, Wis... 10 au 2 2 Five times the final weight..... 745 


40° 


40° 
80° 


or’ 


oT’ 
9T° 


6.’ 
T0° 


a 
6o° 


VSS otek Gs-b erie 
LOG ce OF Lb eT: 
Fike oboe SL-c: .OT G 
ETE. UE OR LOS 
SOB o Lee OG an coe 
OCR OR ee AV 79: 
COmeoS ie Gd ie SC: 
LO eek Ose Ome 2.05 
Os OS 4 8. 


09° 


GL'S 89°F 
96° 68° 

Sg rhs 
Ost Sls 
240° 66° 

89° 99°T 
Ost OLG 
Io” 9S" 

ZT 82'T 

I 319\\ 


“ON 


OCT 96 
OL S803 
90°C 8ST 
02 96° 
Li ees 
6s" 

os- OF 
LG, 6G: 
98 98 


USAT) SIYSIOM 943 Aq poTdn[NW IIA 1qeL JO yey} st eIeq oyL 


CCM GL ams OeutO (s 
SO Seat 0 Lege Cor) oo: 
Com Lae LoL 

205 607 905 
Ome? 0 en OL S0> 

TEO* 206%, - TS" 
CG eee Ge ose 00) 
Gomme CGM—e () Gre a0) 
LO SOs OTs Dee 
LO 80s) 80s 2 CT) 
LO eer Os DOES a S07 
Tie UG Se Lor Pe SL; 


‘sonUIY ¢ YORY OZ sayouy ur yydoq Burary ‘aang urey peosidAyT ‘ul OF JO wi07 


Mile 
ce" 
0° 
ol’ 
cv’ 
oT 


tS" 
vo 
6G" 


Loe 


éT 
Te" 


"BIJ Ul UMOYS Se ‘fedItjaWIWIAS SI 


rs 
or’ 
0c" 
9s" 
&T 
8c" 


96° 
40° 
Lv 


98° 


Te 
83° 


96° 
sv" 
oo" 
oF 
Ie’ 
6&" 


Fr 
66° 
6S" 
Cy 
98° 
6&" 


er 
7 
LT” 
ace 
98° 
9° 


6S" 
OL’ 
Ts" 


ve" 


8c" 
96° 


0G" 
rem 
03° 
0G" 
Go" 
LT 


0e° 
Gs’ 
LS. 
90° 
co" 
60° 


rT" 


7 


80° 
90° 
Ie 
60° 


tT" 
6s" 
06° 
80° 
TS" 
60° 


40° 
co 


80° 
Go" 
60° 


‘S[BAIOJUT ayNUIPL ATT 


240° 
40° 
80° 
F0° 
6G" 
80° 


*S[PAIOJUT SINUIP OAT 


8h GL: 
40’ 10° 
LS mamOGe 
RST Keke 
0° 
cs 


00° 
VOSS 
40° 

LO 


. 


. 


. 


‘S[BAIOJUT oyNuUIyW 


C8 GS 
40° 
80° 


‘InoduMoq 94} jo 8uruulseq wo 


40° 


ra oD SH 1G 


‘ON 


yUsMIISUCIIV 9} ey} Jdooxy 


SI RA BON ONAL PERO CNS C8 


‘QA0qV 24} sv ames sy TL 


. 


. 


. 


SATT P2ITsIOM 
‘soljisuajuy [eordAy, Suruiejqg JO poyjey, BuIMOYS “XT 29eL 


eee ee eee ee eestor eee 


J siete eT ATINOFT 
aBeIIAY 


Oc*** [BIOL 


eoee roves 


Hr HH 10 
ra MOD SHLD 


ee eee Preysursds 


ee 6 606. @ 8 ao 6 © 8-6 8 6 eo ele a im suezITIO MIN 
6 6. 6G, 0 6 0.6 s we 6 0 6.8 wee = 6 enn Ss yiodsaaIyS 
ee erquin{o,) 


eee eee ee see ee eee ewe ee eee 


Ce 


eeeee 


eeeee 


. 


u0jSUIXe'T 
dT[IASURA 


—santg 


ITA PSeL 


“OW “ppysurids 
“eT ‘suBatIOQ MAN 
steerer GrodaaaiysS 
eeeee ‘OW ‘eIquin[o) 
‘U0 SUIXa'T 


Sy Sess sie Cem iameds Raat kee U |} ‘OT [TASURAT 


SUIUIWII9}9q] UL pes~, suoredoa1g 


—sontg 


TTA SARL 


ugg 


059257946 


